Distance

[RX-79G]

The difference between a target at five yards and one at twenty five is the effect of the angular dispersion of the shots.

The effect is that you can see that amount of angular dispersion more easily as the target is further out. Very close targets tend to disguise it and give the shooter an unrealistic sense of development.

-and on the ability to shoot before acquiring a sight picture.

Which is what I was getting at. If close range targets allow even people shooting without sight acquisition to group decently, why would anyone think that the same close target is good for developing sighted shooting?

I'm not insisting everyone should be shooting at 25 yards, but if you can't keep your shots within 4" at 7 yards when using the sights, there is something fundamentally wrong that suggests going back to basics with slower, more carefully aimed shots and dry fire practice.

 

[hdwhit]

Thank you for the helpful info and not belittling me.

This site is pretty good about that.

Besides, you had the courage to post a picture of your pistol target from 25 yards away. I've never shot a target with pistol from that distance and I'm afraid if I tried it would look like a blank piece of paper.

 

[Kleanbore]

The effect is that you can see that amount of angular dispersion more easily as the target is further out. Very close targets tend to disguise it and give the shooter an unrealistic sense of development.

That depends entirely upon what skills the shooter is trying to develop. If the shooter is trying to fine-tune grip, trigger control, and the use of the sights, the use of a more distant target--or a smaller one--is desirable. If one who is competent in the fundamentals is trying to train for realistic self defense, it is not.

If close range targets allow even people shooting without sight acquisition to group decently, why would anyone think that the same close target is good for developing sighted shooting?

I don;t know that anyone would, but when one is training or practicing on close range targets, the size of the group is not the objective at all. The objective is to increase the speed with which one can consistently score multiple hits on a target the size of the upper chest.

if you can't keep your shots within 4" at 7 yards when using the sights, there is something fundamentally wrong that suggests going back to basics with slower, more carefully aimed shots and dry fire practice.

If that is what one is trying to do, okay.

 

[RX-79G]

If that is what one is trying to do, okay.

That appears to be what the OP is trying to do. One shot in 2 seconds is not point shooting.

 

[Kleanbore]

This thread is inspired by the "Combat Distance" thread.

It is intended for hand gun training mainly. Up until recently I trained at 30ish feet or less. Today I spent the whole time shooting mostly the max my range would allow, 25yds. It was very humbling to say the least. I will be practicing at this distance much more regularly.

Although most encounters are bound to be much closer than 25yds I agree with the idea that "if you can shoot at a distance it makes shooting up close seem like cheating". That makes good sense to me.

Anyway, what distances do you normally practice at with your pistol?

I've worked up the courage to post a pic of my best of the day at 25yds with hopes that I won't get laughed off the forum. Keep in mind this is maybe the second or third time I've shot that far, and it's been a while.

Started center mass and worked my way up to the head. Shots were consecutive, with maybe 1-2 seconds between, not "slow shots".

RX-79G brings up a point.

Shots that are one or two seconds apart are indeed "slow shots"--by any standard, when it comes to defensive shooting. Very slow!

I do not recall the "Combat Distance" thread, but it the OP does in fact intend to train for self defense, (1) "30ish feet" and twenty-five yards are way out of the likely range--most defensive shootings occur at only a few feert--and (2) such a shooting speed would not be helpful at all.

Consider that in two seconds, an attacker would be able to close about ten meters. Ons should strive for consistent hits at a nominal speed of two or three shots per second.

And no, being able shoot at a distance is not likely to prepare one for close range defensive shooting.

 

[RX-79G]

I do not recall the "Combat Distance" thread, but it the OP does in fact intend to train for self defense,

That thread was about training for the possibility of defending yourself or others at longer than contact ranges, which inspired the OP to attempt 25 yards. This thread isn't really about rapid fire point shooting.

 

[Hangingrock]

Ons should strive for consistent hits at a nominal speed of two or three shots per second.

If you would please elaborate on the time frame specified. Are we talking drawing the weapon from concealment or is the weapon already drawn thus talking rate of fire per second?

 

[Kleanbore]

That thread was about training for the possibility of defending yourself or others at longer than contact ranges, which inspired the OP to attempt 25 yards. This thread isn't really about rapid fire point shooting.

Thanks.

 

[Dog Soldier]

The FBI shooting incidents show 75% are with in Nine feet.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/01/05/fbi-firearms-training/1811053/

 

[Kleanbore]

If you would please elaborate on the time frame specified. Are we talking drawing the weapon from concealment or is the weapon already drawn thus talking rate of fire per second?

Rate of fire. Assumes a violent close quarters attack. If the attacker is at a longer range (with justification created by his aiming a firearm at you, or by his posing an imminent threat to someone else farther away) that would not apply. The proper balance of speed and precision is always situationally dependent. The more distant target requires more precision, and if there is a third person involved, it essential that the shooter not hit that person.

It's certainly not a bad idea to be able to shoot well at longer ranges, but with the much greater likelihood that an attack, should it ever occur, would involve a much shorter distance, it would be prudent to invest most of one's training time in preparation for close-quarters situations.

For anyone who might not know this, the reason for shooting multiple shots rapidly is that handgun bullets must strike something critical to effect a timely physical stop, and those critical somethings are hidden within the body and moving fast.

 

[Hangingrock]

Rate of fire

That what I thought you meant. The old adage of "Shoot Them Into The Ground" applies. Is there a good statistical reference for citizen shooting incidents documented like law enforcement shooting incidents are? The "Armed Citizen column in NRA publications are more or less blurbs taken from news sources thus lacking in depth detail.

 

[RX-79G]

The FBI shooting incidents show 75% are with in Nine feet.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/01/05/fbi-firearms-training/1811053/

We aren't FBI agents or LEO.

Is there a good statistical reference for citizen shooting incidents documented like law enforcement shooting incidents are?

Absolutely not. There isn't a good statistical source on LE shootings in the US, let alone self defense shootings that aren't adjudicated. That is why estimates of self defense frequency vary so incredibly - there is no mechanism for gathering such data.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Please post your link? Thanks.

 

[RX-79G]

Please post your link? Thanks.

Link to what? I don't have a link to something that doesn't exist.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Humm? Thought so.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Since we do not have a reference point the FBI stats can serve as a reference. The "crash dummies" aren't real but we judge their experiments as possibilities.

 

[strambo]

We aren't FBI agents or LEO.

Absolutely not. There isn't a good statistical source on LE shootings in the US, let alone self defense shootings that aren't adjudicated. That is why estimates of self defense frequency vary so incredibly - there is no mechanism for gathering such data.

Well...how far away do you think the average mugger, armed robber, or home invader will be since we aren't FBI or LEO?

 

[RX-79G]

Well...how far away do you think the average mugger, armed robber, or home invader will be since we aren't FBI or LEO?

If you only want to prepare for "the average mugger, armed robber, or home invader", feel free.

I take the point of view that regular citizens do not go looking for fights the way LE at times has to, and that when our one out-of-the-blue fight comes it may be 30 rows back in a crowded theater, on a hiking trail or in a long hallway at work. Many mass shooting incidents are in crowded open places where the assailant is using a rifle and the only real protection you have is to be proactive before the killer's muzzle swings your way.

That's a poor time to find out that peppering a man size target from 5 yards has not taught you how to aim, where the gun hits at range or how to really control the trigger.


And to editorialize a little bit more, someone who has the trigger control and steady aim to deliver reasonably rapid center hits at a 25 yard target has skills that will apply very well at close range, too.

 

[RX-79G]

Since we do not have a reference point the FBI stats can serve as a reference. The "crash dummies" aren't real but we judge their experiments as possibilities.

Crash test dummies are experiments that mimic the reality in question.

Using LE stats for everything is like designing minivans and city roads only using data from NASCAR.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you only want to prepare for "the average mugger, armed robber, or home invader", feel free.

It is not a good idea to rely upon averages.

I take the point of view that regular citizens do not go looking for fights the way LE at times has to, and that when our one out-of-the-blue fight comes it may be 30 rows back in a crowded theater, on a hiking trail or in a long hallway at work.

It may, but that is probably the least likely eventuality.

Many mass shooting incidents are in crowded open places where the assailant is using a rifle and the only real protection you have is to be proactive before the killer's muzzle swings your way.

That's a poor time to find out that peppering a man size target from 5 yards has not taught you how to aim, where the gun hits at range or how to really control the trigger.

Not a bad point, but one's happening to be where a mass shooting occurs is far less likely than one's being surprised at close range in a service station lot or a parking lot.

And to editorialize a little bit more, someone who has the trigger control and steady aim to deliver reasonably rapid center hits at a 25 yard target has skills that will apply very well at close range, too.

Some of the skills--not all.

 

[strambo]

If you only want to prepare for "the average mugger, armed robber, or home invader", feel free.

I take the point of view that regular citizens do not go looking for fights the way LE at times has to, and that when our one out-of-the-blue fight comes it may be 30 rows back in a crowded theater, on a hiking trail or in a long hallway at work. Many mass shooting incidents are in crowded open places where the assailant is using a rifle and the only real protection you have is to be proactive before the killer's muzzle swings your way.

That's a poor time to find out that peppering a man size target from 5 yards has not taught you how to aim, where the gun hits at range or how to really control the trigger.


And to editorialize a little bit more, someone who has the trigger control and steady aim to deliver reasonably rapid center hits at a 25 yard target has skills that will apply very well at close range, too.

All you have are straw-man arguments. So, we should primarily practice at long ranges due to the most statistically unlikely type of attack and distances? So, anyone who doesn't focus on shooting at 25yds+ must by default be "peppering" the target at 5? Another one, so those who place a focus on close-fast shooting are "only" preparing for the average mugger or home invader? Are we allowed to also practice distance shots, use of cover, evasion etc?

This photo is 2 shots from a run starting at about 5yds and closing. 2 sternum hits are visible in the hi-res version.



Here is a concept: trigger control is trigger control. If you have trigger control at high-speed along with a good grip and index, you can shoot fast and accurate while moving up close and be accurate at distance as well. A gunfight is a fight, marksmanship is a small part of the equation. Being able to exhibit that marksmanship under life or death pressure...well that is the rub.

 

[Kleanbore]

Here is a concept: trigger control is trigger control. If you have trigger control at high-speed along with a good grip and index, you can shoot fast and accurate while moving up close and be accurate at distance as well.

Yes, that is a very important part of the skillset.

 

[Kleanbore]

peppering a man size target from 5 yards has not taught you how to aim,

Five yards? That's on the long end. If your justification hinges on the man having started at you from the legendary ol' seven yards, you won't be shooting by the time he gets to five.

Ann you really should not be training for "peppering a man sized target". Think consistent hits in an area the size of an upper chest.

...where the gun hits at range

Which, of course, would not be important for that kind of scenario.

...or how to really control the trigger.

A fundamental skill that should be mastered first....

 

[RX-79G]

All you have are straw-man arguments. So, we should primarily practice at long ranges due to the most statistically unlikely type of attack and distances? So, anyone who doesn't focus on shooting at 25yds+ must by default be "peppering" the target at 5? Another one, so those who place a focus on close-fast shooting are "only" preparing for the average mugger or home invader? Are we allowed to also practice distance shots, use of cover, evasion etc?

This photo is 2 shots from a run starting at about 5yds and closing. 2 sternum hits are visible in the hi-res version.

Here is a concept: trigger control is trigger control. If you have trigger control at high-speed along with a good grip and index, you can shoot fast and accurate while moving up close and be accurate at distance as well. A gunfight is a fight, marksmanship is a small part of the equation. Being able to exhibit that marksmanship under life or death pressure...well that is the rub.

Dude, I certainly didn't suggest only practicing at 25 yards. Who's making the strawman argument? You've taken my post suggesting that shooting at decent range is also important and treated it as a demand to not do anything else. That's a strawman.

A fundamental skill that should be mastered first....

Which is what I'm talking about.

Five yards? That's on the long end. If your justification hinges on the man having started at you from the legendary ol' seven yards, you won't be shooting by the time he gets to five.

You seem to understand what I'm talking about two posts ago, but now you're arguing something else. If you want to move your targets up to 1 yard to work on you accuracy skills, go ahead. But it is a piece of paper that shows hit dispersion, not a simulator.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you want to move your targets up to 1 yard to work on you accuracy skills, go ahead.

One does not shoot at extremely close targets to "work on...accuracy skills".

But it is a piece of paper that shows hit dispersion, not a simulator.

The purpose is not to show "hit dispersion"...it is to learn to hit quickly and consistently.

There may be a good reason to train using targets a yard or so away: to shoot from a close retention position, and to get the gun our and working while moving from the threat very fast.

No, a stationary target is not a simulator, and yes, a simulator is better, as is FoF training with simunitions.