Engaging an AR shooter with handgun

[SSN Vet]

This incident reminds me that it is NOT a good idea to elect to engage a shooter with a hi-cap rifle, when only armed with a handgun. Especially if he's earned a CIB, jump wings and Expert Rifle badge.

Deja-vu from the Tyler Courthouse shooting 10 years ago.

I admire these men for their gumption to try to stop an active shooter and save lives... but as Dirty Harry says "a man's got to know his limitations".

At best, you would have to have cover to get in close, as trying to engage from >25 yds with a handgun would put you at a great disadvantage.

 

[Sistema1927]

Sad.

 

[Derry 1946]

I recall the Mark James Robert Essex shootings of 1972-73.

 

[strambo]

From the story about the wounded CCW permit holder:

Cops first on the scene initially thought Wilson may have been the shooter

Always keep this in mind. What is the adrenalized cop, with next to no info, going to do with the first person they see with a gun?

As for the OP topic, if there is distance, you need cover (wheels are nice) to nulify the rifle round's effectiveness and ideally close distance, or if they don't know you are there yet, you may get a few undisturbed long aimed shots off.

If your long shots don't do it (while you had the element of surprise), might be time to break contact. A 25m+ stand up firefight with an AR wielding attacker isn't going to cut it.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

The guy had guts, that's for sure.
Who expects a bad guy to be wearing a vest?
Lesson learned---if taking action get close, use surprise and take a head shot.
But that is a big IF.

 

[SSN Vet]

In Tyler, the active shooter is wearing body armor.

The shooter has initiative and planning on their side.

You just can't know what your up against.

 

[230RN]

I've answered this before several times, having made my decision long ago when there was a case of some nut job shooting up a mall from a balcony a number of years ago.

However, it was from a different perspective from most of you.

That perspective being:

1. I am now 77 yo and happy with my own laufbahn.

2. My kids are grown and off on their own.

3. My wife died in early '08.

4. I routinely carry laser-sighted guns.

5. I am pretty familiar with trajectories, etc, having been a shooter for a loooong time. Snubby notwithstanding.

The answer? For me?

If there were no innocents near me, I would engage in suppressive fire, regardless of range, regardless of opposing armaments and armor, on the theories that:

1. I might be able to disable, distract, or delay the shooter from shooting any young person who had their whole lives in front of them. In the meantime, sirens would probably be approaching.

2. I'd rather die in this situation than panting to death in a hospice at 90 yo.

Your mileage (and age and offspring and marital status) may vary.

Also, your willingness to fight back.

Terry, "No big effing hero, but...", 230RN

 

[EmbarkChief]

I donated to his go-fund me. First time I have ever done that. I saw his picture and saw myself, wife and a 2 year old at home. I agree with everything posted above, engaging a shooter with an AR when armed with a handgun is a damn tough pill to swallow. That guy had big brass balls, and deserves my respect for what he did. When you are single with no little ones I think the choice is much easier, I know it was for me. Now with a family things change, I'm more more inclined to be defensive rather than offensive these days. I don't want my little girl growing up without her daddy if I can help it.

I'm sure he didn't go into that blind to the risks involved, his family said be had been a concealed carrier for years. Its incidents like this that make me seriously consider mounting a rifle in my daily driver. Has the world really come down to that? I don't know, but this incident unfolded in an area I have been known to frequent and it just as easily been me making that choice to engage or disengage. This may sound silly but I just hope that it was the perp that shot him and not the responding officers.

 

[EEllis708]

They don't go into specifics but I don't think the guy shot was actually carrying on person. He may have been shot while trying to get to his gun. I don't know where I read that, and it was less than clear, but supposedly he always carried when he wasn't with his son. His son was with him at the scene and something I read said he was trying to distract the shooter? Though situation all around.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I'm certainly not going to contradict you guys who have a lot of experience in these matters, but I do remember the case of a Christian minister in South Africa (I think) who scared terrorists with long guns away from a church service with a 5-shot snubby. So sometimes there can be a happy ending.

 

[shafter]

Over the years I've noticed that many concealed carry folks have an excellent grasp of gun safety and many are good shots from spending a lot of weekends at the range. They're also great at avoiding trouble. However, when trouble arrives their tactics are terrible.

 

[SSN Vet]

I think a bunch of thugs looking to burn down a church or rip off a liquor store have very low personal investment in the outcome and little to gain. So they might cut and run at the first indication that they may well lose their own lives.

By way of comparison, I attended a very interesting lecture about the snow shoe patrols in southern Maine before and during the French & Indian war. The lecturer said the Micmac warriors were largely in it for battle glory and booty, and that when they were opposed with substantial force and the prospect of dying, they quickly lost their appetite for the fight and went home.

But our modern mass shooters fall into a different category. They often most often mentally unstable and expect to die. They just want to take out as many as they can, so as to go out in a blaze of distorted glory. But then again, school shooters often plan on putting a bullet in their own head at the final minute, and may do so as soon as they encounter return fire (as Lanza did at Sandy Hook).

I'd like to think that I would return fire, but there's not a day that goes by that I don't worry about what will happen to my wife and three girls if I'm not here to provide for them.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

At best, you would have to have cover to get in close, as trying to engage from >25 yds with a handgun would put you at a great disadvantage.

I guess this depends on how you practice. The way I see it, the closer you get, the greater the chance of being spotted and the greater your chance of being shot. Being shot by a rifle puts you at a great disadvantage. For me personally, I would not want to get in closer than 25 yards unless I had no other choice and would prefer the distance to be more like 50 yards.

As we have seen with folks who try to stand up to rifle rampage shooters, the rifle shooters often don't like it. Ask Dan McKown, Mark Wilson, or Byron Wilson - all shot multiple times.

While not 165 yards (more like 50-65 yards), Vic Stacy did a good job years ago against a murderer who was about to shoot a cop.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=670777&highlight=vic+stacy

 

[shafter]

I guess this depends on how you practice. The way I see it, the closer you get, the greater the chance of being spotted and the greater your chance of being shot. Being shot by a rifle puts you at a great disadvantage. For me personally, I would not want to get in closer than 25 yards unless I had no other choice and would prefer the distance to be more like 50 yards.

If you've made the choice to engage pistol vs rifle, your best bet may be to close the distance. At the distance being talked about a few yards may make a big difference for the pistol guy but not as much so for the rifle guy. In other words it probably isn't going to get much easier or harder for the guy with the rifle but closing the distance may be crucial for the guy with the pistol. You need to be within effective range for the weapon you have with you.

You also have the possibility of the guy with a rifle being unnerved by the person closing in on him especially if he's firing while advancing.

This is assuming that there is no cover available and disengaging and retreat isn't an option.

 

[X-Rap]

Have to wonder how it could have turned if he had a Trijicon sight on that pistol or better yet some sort of serious "truck gun".
Don't know enough info but distance he was used to practicing at and capacity inc reloads sure could have come into play. 200 + rds. Far exceeds the simple 5 shot gunfight we're encouraged to believe is the norm.
To bad we had a good man go bad as well.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You also have the possibility of the guy with a rifle being unnerved by the person closing in on him especially if he's firing while advancing.

Funny thing, the opposite is also true. The guy trying to advance may become unnerved when the rifleman starts opening up on him.

This is assuming that there is no cover available and disengaging and retreat isn't an option.

Custer may have faced the problem of a big open field with no cover, but what about in an urban environment where you have businesses, vehicles, walls, etc.? Lots of cover to use.

 

[rcmodel]

And then, there was the Austen TX cop who shot an AR-15 gunman at 100+ yards one handed, while holding two horses.

Never say never.

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

Seems to me, many if not most of today's pistol packers practice at 7 yards or less, and are bragging if they can keep all thier shots on a man sized target at 21 feet!!

I grew up on a Kansas farm with a pistol always handy.

Shooting at 75 to 100+ yards on small targets like jack rabbits and coyotes was what I thought handguns were used for!!

There was a time I could give a gallon coffee can fits at 100 yards with a 2" Chiefs Special.
It didn't stand a chance with a 4" or 6" .357, or a match grade 1911.

Apparently, that Austen cop was raised the same way I was, only in Texas.

rc

 

[MedWheeler]

I think I'd rather be well beyond 25 yards armed only with a .22 rifle than within 25 yards with any handgun.

My longest-range capable handgun is probably my newly-acquired Romanian TTC (Tokarev), which I haven't even cleaned of Cosmoline yet, let alone shot. Maybe some training with it is in order.

 

[strambo]

It all comes down to the specifics of the environment. There is no right answer in general. At 0-15 ft I'd maybe give a slight advantage to the handgun. 5-10 yds, small edge rifle for terminal performance, maneuverability of handgun no longer an advantage. 10-25 yds increasing edge to rifle and over 25, the handgun is really hurting.

If you can get into a distance of feet w/o being spotted, you have excellent odds.

 

[strambo]

Over the years I've noticed that many concealed carry folks have an excellent grasp of gun safety and many are good shots from spending a lot of weekends at the range. They're also great at avoiding trouble. However, when trouble arrives their tactics are terrible.

Just post a thread in this subforum asking if people think civilians should get professional training or look at the number of viewers and threads in S&T vs any other part of this site and you'll know why.

Nobody (like 90% ) cares about getting realistic professional training, only about buying yet another gun to post about and put in the safe. (That's fine, I dig guns also, but for 1 less high quality gun, they could have attended a good 2 day defensive firearm class.)

 

[shafter]

Custer may have faced the problem of a big open field with no cover, but what about in an urban environment where you have businesses, vehicles, walls, etc.? Lots of cover to use.

Absolutely. If it's there, use it.

Just post a thread in this subforum asking if people think civilians should get professional training or look at the number of viewers and threads in S&T vs any other part of this site and you'll know why.

Nobody (like 90% ) cares about getting realistic professional training, only about buying yet another gun to post about and put in the safe. (That's fine, I dig guns also, but for 1 less high quality gun, they could have attended a good 2 day defensive firearm class.)

Training and mental preparedness are everything. Civilians should seek professional training if at all possible, and professionals should be constantly seeking to keep their edge.

 

[sota]

Over the years I've noticed that many concealed carry folks have an excellent grasp of gun safety and many are good shots from spending a lot of weekends at the range. They're also great at avoiding trouble. However, when trouble arrives their tactics are terrible.

I'll quote someone from another board. The topic at hand was DA/SA as a carry weapon (and it's suitability,) but the response fits why the majority of civilians suck in a firefight.

It is less of a concern due to frequency, and more of a concern due to it being a totally unfamiliar skill that you are likely doing for the first time if you do end up in that situation.

When was the last time YOU got into a shootout in a mall? Hell I'm 43 and I've NEVER EVEN SEEN a shootout first hand.

Training and mental preparedness are everything. Civilians should seek professional training if at all possible, and professionals should be constantly seeking to keep their edge.

In an ideal world I'd love to spend 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, practicing all the things I should know "just in case." However if you stacked up all the items that fit that category, I wouldn't have enough time left in a given year to LIVE, much less work.

 

[sbwaters]

With IDPA inside the 50 foot range over for the winter, at the outside range I put orange 8" circle Newbold self-healing targets out at 25 yards and practiced making them jump. Harder, but satisfying.

After this thread, I may just add a target or two at a longer distance.

 

[lemaymiami]

Tried to read all the posts on this thread - but didn't quite make it all the way....

As usual in any armed encounter your tactics are far more important than whatever weapon you're able to bring to the fight... and yes, tactics also include knowing when to back off if you're on the seriously dis-advantaged side of the equation. The big advantage a rifle equipped opponent has is the ability to reach out and do damage from a distance - that advantage diminishes as the distances involved get closer. The downside for the defender is that it's tough to close distance if you're under observation...

I believe that our current world includes a few individuals that are intent on what I would describe as an aggressive suicide.... They're planning and dreaming of that day when for a few moments they're all powerful and able to take as many as possible with them before they go down. We're not very good at identifying them before they act out so we end up dealing with the consequences as it occurs or afterwards (when there will always be plenty of blame to go around...). From what I've observed our police forces are better able to cope with such occurrences (but will always be in a reactive mode -which means bad outcomes for innocent targets until the shooter is finally down....).

More about this sort of stuff but never on a public forum...

 

[X-Rap]

There's nothing wrong with doing some shooting out a what is probably considered extreme for pistols. I'd suggest finding a good dirt bank so you can see your impacts and concern yourself more with consistency more than hitting your specific target.
You may be hitting 10 feet low but if you are grouping well you can then start to make corrections.
Elmer Keith said the handgun was a weapon of opportunity and I agree.
Like RC said, I have also made what some consider pretty spectacular shots well past 100 yds.
I've always considered long range capabilities as important skills in the toolbox.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk