General wisdom: If a pistol is what you use until you get to your rifle..

[HoosierQ]

A lot of this stuff came out of the Iraq war. During the height of the war, there were 10's of thousands of western citizens working in that country. Contractors of every sort, not just bodyguards and whatnot. Those people were obviously working doing normal stuff (power plants, oil production, water purification, healthcare) in a country that was running amuck and where a war was underway with an insurgency active. They had to be prepared to protect themselves.

As far as I can tell, "bug out bag", the whole "use a pistol to fight to your rifle" and all of these things came out of that. Of course everybody who lives in Tornado Alley, Hurricane zones, or earthquake zones, already was well acquainted with the "bug out bag" but called it their Tornado bag etc.

Wars have an effect on the societies that fight them and language is one place where that happens.

 

[mljdeckard]

I tell my concealed carry students that a handgun is not an ideal tool for any job. It's what we carry because it's practical and convenient. If they ask me what I would prefer to bring to a gunfight, I tell them; "A platoon of Marine infantry." You should use overwhelming force when you are fighting for your life. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

If I every have to 'run and get' a gun, I want it to be a long gun. The handgun is because I probably won't have time.

 

[Blackbeard]

Has there ever been a documented case of someone using a pistol to fight their way to the rifle? It's starting to become as bad a cliche as the ubiquitous boating accidents.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

As far as I can tell, "bug out bag", the whole "use a pistol to fight to your rifle" and all of these things came out of that. Of course everybody who lives in Tornado Alley, Hurricane zones, or earthquake zones, already was well acquainted with the "bug out bag" but called it their Tornado bag etc.

Uh, what? Both of those phrases/ideas existed well before the Iraq war, unless you mean the first Gulf War.

For example:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3723

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.survivalism/O1oOSyuJqss/Rgwr-ACUlmEJ

 

[Cee Zee]

These are extremely isolated and rare cases

They aren't quite as rare as all that. I live near a city that has had 2 race riots in recent decades and both times pale skin types were dragged from their vehicles and beaten extremely bad. The government's idea of a response was to throw money at the problem too creating lots of parks and programs for all those folks that thought school was for suckers and a waste of time. Then there was Katrina. And there were other disasters that weren't as bad but were still leaped on by looters and the like. Then of course there's the national pastime, the drive by. Yes most folks never have reason to fear such things but I found myself a target for one through no fault of my own whatsoever. We went to a family reunion in a fairly large city and while talking to the son of the host I found out he was standing guard waiting for the hoods to come by looking for the money he owed them for drugs. And by come by I meant drive by. I spent the rest of the day standing guard with him because my family was in that house including my children, my wife and almost all of my wife's relatives.

Then there was the time my son and I were walking from our hotel to get some food in a little town in the mountains well known for the violence of it's people. My truck had broke down and we were on foot until I could get my other truck to pull my ATV trailer back home. I had a tow truck bring it along and take my broken down truck home. Anyway I noticed a young man who appeared to be in his late teens look our way then dart into the pool hall where he was hanging out. Then I noticed several other young males come out of that pool hall and head my way. I turned a corner where they couldn't see us and quickly found a vacant lot surrounded by a stone wall with only one way in. I made sure my son was as protected as possible and I had my Sig P220 in my hand waiting for the worst. They never found us and I'm not certain they were trying. But it sure looked that way and it would be exactly the kind of thing a person might expect in that part of the world. I don't say that out of bigotry. I grew up around that area and I knew a lot of people from that region. I know what they are like. Calling the police would have been futile with nothing more than my suspicion. I was on my own with my son to protect.

I could go on about sitting through armed robberies and how some bozo nearly drew fire my direction once and how I was the only actual witness the other time. The point remains that it doesn't take a major riot to make you want some protection in your hands. I wouldn't dare go into the city now without taking a firearm or two. I actually used to go to a doctor in the very same neighborhood where one of the people was dragged from their car. I no longer go to that doctor. I don't go to the city at all if I can help it.

Trouble is real in this world. I have only scratched the surface of what I've seen and what I know to be true. My mother turned away a rapist with a shotgun, my grandfather turned away a gang of depression era bank robbers intent on kidnapping my uncle again using a shotgun - there are lots of things that happen.

 

[Sam1911]

Cee Zee, to be clear, though, few of those examples have anything to do with the "fight your way to a rifle" maxim.

Walking around in a rough town after your truck breaks down doesn't seem to have much room for toting around a rifle or certainly engaging anyone with one. Being present where someone is the victim of a drive-by shooting doesn't either. (There really isn't a good shooting response to a drive-by at all.)

Riots perhaps may present a situation where a rifle may be useful, if you happen to have a location to hole up in and defend right where the riot is happening -- but as a traveler or bystander, brandishing or firing a weapon of any sort is probably not a good plan for several reasons. So, again, "fight your way..." doesn't apply.

 

[Tinpig]

ridgerunner's post stated my thinking exactly.

I live at the end of a 3/4 mile dirt road with my wife and some of my four children and two grandchildren. No neighbors within a mile. I'm working outdoors or we're inside at night and felons (or prospective felons) pull up in my yard looking for drugs, money, guns, vehicles, electronics, etc. and things turn nasty (it happens.)

I've always got my carry pistol on me, and that's hopefully enough to get myself and my family upstairs to where the AR and shotguns are stored, and the line is drawn. Can't retreat any further than that.

Call 911? 1/2 hour at best, if they can find the house.

Tinpig

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ridgerunner1965: carrying a pistol to fight your way to a rifle is not as stupid as it may sound in certain situations.

for instance, you live in a very rural area and you arrive home at the end of your 1/2 mile long driveway.

there are 2 perps very obviously loading your belongings into a beat up pickup truck.

you draw your small pistol and use it to cover your sprint to a outbuilding where yu have a more appropriate weapon hidden. which in my case would be various shotguns loaded with buckshot.

Why would you ever even consider doing that?

If you do make the sprint without being harmed, and if your shotguns have not already been taken, what would you do with them?

to me, once a threat is out of buckshot range it is no longer a threat.

The point being what?

but you get the idea. if i simply called 911 it would be 30 min at least to a hr before they got here. id never get my stuff back, if they did find it, i would never be notified and it would be sold at the next police auction and the money would go back to the county sheriffs budget. that is common knowledge around here.

I guess I don't get the idea.

If you are suggesting the idea of using deadly force to defend what the law defines as "mere property", you would be committing a felony in all US jurisdictions except one, and in that one, such a course of action would be lawful if and only if certain very limited circumstances existed.

lots of stuff that dont make sense to town people makes perfect sense to country people.

Well, the laws that exist in the great majority of our states were codified and/or established as common law with very heavy input from "country people".

The thing to do if you arrive home to find people rummaging through your belongings is drive to safety immediately, without having been noticed, if at all possible, and call from there.

Once you can get home safely, you will have plenty of time to consult with your insurance company.

 

[Sol]

A handgun is the same thing as a rifle.

Except the rifle is more effective at longer ranges.

If you are just a lowly home owning civilian in America, having a pistol is just as effective as a rifle, except under rare circumstances.

If somebody home invaded me, I would grab a pistol.
If somebody was taking pop shots at me at 100 plus feet, I would use a rifle.

For the average American, "using a pistol to fight your way to a rifle", is just not a statistically valid scenario.

 

[grter]

I see the point of the situation being unlikely however that does not mean it's impossible and I would only encourage those who go through the extra efforts to prepare themselves.

What is going to happen if a patrol car does happen to come in time. What do you think one or two cops would do while this guy/guys are shooting up your place, you, and god forbid your family.

They are going to stay back until backup in large numbers arrive before going in to defend you. If you live far out well that could be a problem for you if you are unable to hold them off now that they are flipping out because there are cops waiting for them outside and they feel they now need hostages.

Will they generally flee at the first sign of trouble it depends. Do they feel they need to get rid of you because you can be a witness that puts them away forever or significantly compromise their acitivities such as making large sums of money? Is revenge a motive ?

If you live in one of those border towns fending off Mexican drug cartels I would think you better be well armed.

I say tool up according to your needs because there is no such thing as the expected in these situations you better be ready for the unexpected. Sorry I can't offer much more consolation but predicting that the statistics ensure you are safe according to what others expect in their mind is not a sure thing at all.

Whatever you have in store to protect you and the lives of your loved ones will work best if it's an unexpected devastating surprise for the bad guys.

 

[kimberkid]

I think in a civilian situation this is more likely ... I heard it somewhere, googled it and found it on Tennessee Arms ...

7. The old sheriff was attending an
awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm.

“Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?”

“NO Ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.”



Not necessarily a rifle, but sometimes, more commonly around the holidays I'll keep something bigger than my CCW in the truck or back of my wife's SUV.

 

[mljdeckard]

Sol, a rifle is much more effective at shorter ranges too.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I could see the saying having some application in the old west when help was a long way off. I don't think it has much meaning for civilians today.

 

[Cee Zee]

Walking around in a rough town after your truck breaks down doesn't seem to have much room for toting around a rifle or certainly engaging anyone with one.

You're right about that. I didn't mean to imply it was a good reason for carrying a long gun. I was just trying to make the point that things do happen sometimes. I should have explained that I guess.

 

[mljdeckard]

Johnblitz, how do you measure "a long way off"? How far, in distance or time, away from help do you need to be before you decide it's a good idea to put down your less effective weapon and pick up a more powerful weapon? What line gets crossed where you suddenly decide that if you have to use deadly force, it needs to be effective, but as long as there is someone close by, you don't need to?

Are all of us who are trained and continue to train to use a rifle defensively wasting our time? Are the antis right when they say you don't need a rifle to defend yourself?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Sol: If you are just a lowly home owning civilian in America, having a pistol is just as effective as a rifle, except under rare circumstances.

Some time back, someone put on a demo in which a woman tried out a 12 ga. slide action shotgun, a double action revolver, and an AR carbine.

She had great difficulty with the shotgun and limited success with the revolver, but she did very well with the carbine.

I think the carbine would be the best of the three for home defense for someone who is able to get to it. but in my case that would be risky. So I carry a handgun at home.

 

[Cee Zee]

I think the carbine would be the best of the three for home defense for someone who is able to get to it.

That seems to be the conventional wisdom now that frangible bullets are widely available. No more worries about ricochets or over penetration. And pretty much everyone from the age of 10 up (or younger) can handle a .223 carbine. I had my kids shooting my 7.62 x 39 SKS when they were 10. They never had a problem with it at all. They set up a swinging target and wore it out. You can sling a lot of lead with a good carbine and a high capacity magazine. Shotguns are much tougher for women especially. Not all women of course but for some. Smaller shotguns are available and so are reduced power loads. But shotguns don't generally hold 30 rounds in a magazine like a .223 carbine. So after a couple hundred years of being the king of HD the shotgun has been replaced by the .223 carbine IMO.

Of course a handgun has it's place too. They are very easy to work with in tight quarters but again the more powerful models can be tough for women of slight build or youngsters.

 

[Zach S]

A handgun is the same thing as a rifle.

Except the rifle is more effective at longer ranges.

If you are just a lowly home owning civilian in America, having a pistol is just as effective as a rifle, except under rare circumstances.

If somebody home invaded me, I would grab a pistol.
If somebody was taking pop shots at me at 100 plus feet, I would use a rifle.

For the average American, "using a pistol to fight your way to a rifle", is just not a statistically valid scenario.

While I agree that using a pistol to fight you way back to your rifle isn't a statistically valid scenario for RJ Citizen, I disagree with the rest.

Handguns suck. I think Corriea(sp?) said that was a point he made in his CCW classes.

Handgun "stopping power" pales in comparison to a rifle. They are also harder to shoot, and that difficulty goes up exponentially when stress is added. Depending on how you look at it, you either have one contact point with a handgun, or two, stacked on top of each other. With a long gun, you have three, and they're spread apart. I have seen a lot of new shooters pattern their target at 5yds with a handgun and get frustrated. Most found more patience after shooting groups with my 9mm or .22 AR15 at 25 yards after a minute of unstruction.

If someone were to kick in my front door, right now, I would use my EDC. However, about 30 min from now, I'd use my AR15. Right now, I'm on my couch, ten ft away from the front door with my EDC. In 30 min, I'll be in bed, with a choice between a pistol and carbine.

Handguns are compromise guns. They are what you use if a long gun isn't feasible or readily accessible.

I carry a handgun just in case. If I know danger is imminent, I'll do my best to avoid it, and or have a carbine handy. I dont have a habit of carrying a long gun in the trunk, but have done so in the past. I would at the moment, if I lived in St Louis.

While I would like a HD pistol, it would likely be a 9" 300BLK AR with a Sig arm brace...

Some time back, someone put on a demo in which a woman tried out a 12 ga. slide action shotgun, a double action revolver, and an AR carbine.

She had great difficulty with the shotgun and limited success with the revolver, but she did very well with the carbine.

I think the carbine would be the best of the three for home defense for someone who is able to get to it. but in my case that would be risky. So I carry a handgun at home.

IIRC, that was one of the guys from Adco Firearms. I want to say it was Steve...

Edit: This video?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1UauxacnFA4

 

[Ignition Override]

Except for walking/driving around a street corner and being suddenly blocked in by a riot (South Central LA/Ferguson MO etc), who is going to be under attack by several people in a civilian US setting?

The only other potentially likely scenario is the owner of a jewelry who is at home the owner's family was hostage at home (around 0100). This happened in Germantown TN.
A manager or owner of a small business can be the target of one or two robbers (opening Or closing time).
Keep your hand near a concealed handgun.

 

[Ignition Override]

Except for walking/driving around a street corner and being suddenly blocked in by a riot (South Central LA/Ferguson MO etc), who is going to be under attack by several people in a civilian US setting?

The only other potentially likely scenario is the owner of a jewelry who is at home the owner's family was hostage at home (around 0100). This happened in Germantown TN.
A manager or owner of a small business can be the target of one or two robbers (opening Or closing time).

Keep your hand near a concealed handgun.

 

[Cee Zee]

who is going to be under attack by several people in a civilian US setting?

I'm not saying people should be carrying long guns but there are many scenarios where people get attacked by several bad guys in the US. I posted a list of things earlier. There have been 2 race riots where lots of people attacked a few in the city I live close to. It happened up in Wisconsin not so long ago. It happened in MO not long ago and it may happen again soon. It happened after Katrina. And on a more personal note it very nearly happened to me and my son in a strange town when we were forced to be on foot by a broken down vehicle. Then there was the time 7 people robbed the McDonalds my wife and I were eating in. We were sitting the second table from a door out the front away from the counter. The bozo in the seat by the door jumped up and ran out the door not even knowing there was another bad guy watching outside. It was just pure luck he didn't draw fire from 7 people right at out position. A gang of bank robbers came to kidnap my uncle. A gang of drug dealers were threatening to do a drive by at the house where my wife's family was having a reunion and my small children were inside. These are just my own personal experiences. I'm sure other people have some. There are always situations that might come up. I'm not saying they are common. But they do happen. I'm not saying we all need long guns to deal with these things. But my last story is an example of where I might have needed one. I followed a bunch of drunken illegals down the road one night. I found out I was about 2 minutes behind them. They were driving very slow and they started shooting at anyone who tried to pass them. I saw them at the grocery store where they ran and ditched their car and took off on foot. I was there before the police were. I saw them running. I saw the police pull up so I stayed a minute to see what was going on. It was quickly common knowledge in the little town near where I did live. Those guys were shooting at people with families in their cars. I could easily have needed a long gun that night but my state doesn't allow carrying loaded long guns in the car. I started carrying my S&W 629 with the 8 3/8th inch barrel for a good while because of that night. It has decent range and a good bit of power.

Never say never friend. These things do happen. Again, I am not arguing for long guns but I wouldn't say people never have to face attacks by several people.

 

[Ignition Override]

Cee Zee: Thank you for the sobering reminders and descriptive briefing on your multiple scenarios with close calls. Will reread/digest that when back home and rested.

That is a nasty long string of ending up in the wrong places at the wrong time!
My comment was an attempt to imagine typical encounters with coordinated thugs outside of a riot or flash punk mob, whether Ferguson style or not.

We had a very unique small-mob, random aggression in mid-town Memphis weeks ago at the entrance of the Kroger by Highland/Polar (twenty-forty plus kids led by a young career felon). Some of you saw it in the media. That Kroger is only about two miles south of the western section of the new paved bike trail into midtown, the Greenline.
That 'event' inspired me to No longer postpone the class for the first CCW, even though we never are in that area at night. Yes, the intial 'qual.' CCW is only a "Learner's Permit". Your comments are enough motivation to pursue a self-defense handgun class (combined with some Krav Maga).

By the way, a few months ago two Russian pilots on foot, not far from their hotel and Boeing Tng. Center a little bit s.e. of ATL Airport (Old National Hwy?) not only subdued two muggers,
one of whom had a handgun, but beat the c*** out of the dude with the gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Ignition Override:...who is going to be under attack by several people in a civilian US setting?

The limited data that we do have indicate that if one is attacked, the chances are better than even that he or she will be attacked by two or more violent criminal actors.

 

[Sam1911]

The limited data that we do have indicate that if one is attacked, the chances are better than even that he or she will be attacked by two or more violent criminal actors

Certainly I think that is accepted as true, however it shouldn't be construed as lending almost any credibility to the idea that you "shouldn't have put down your rifle" or that you could, or should "fight your way" to one and carry on hostilities.

Armed encounters are rare (for the by-far greatest percentage of the population who don't engage in certain risk behaviors), and those that do happen tend to be either a) somewhere out and about, in the 99.99% of society where it is utterly impractical to have a rifle within a few step's reach, or at home where you will almost certainly have some home defensive primary arm which might be a rifle or shotgun, or handgun -- but which won't provide an opportunity or reason to "fight your way" to a second firearm of any sort.

Situations where one starts off with a sidearm and battle to a more effective long gun are rare even in military situations (where the majority of troops aren't even issued sidearms) and are so unusual in US civilian life as to need a whole lot of story telling to explain how that scenario might develop.

About the most plausible is still the trunk (or truck) gun theme where the protagonist draws his pistol and then ... whatever. But it still requires weaving a plot by which pistol rounds are exchanged, both good guy and bad guy(s) are still in the fight and actively engaged, BUT the good guy has the magical mix of terrifying lethal threat still present AND also the freedom of time and movement to get to his rifle, ready it, and re-engage someone or a group of someones who still present a lawful justification for homicide.

It certainly can happen. It certainly has happened. (Especially if you understand the concept of M-Theory and an infinite multi-verse.) But it is probably not something we should base fundamental gunny wisdom upon. As I once pointed out not really in jest, wearing a life jacket wherever you go is probably a more effective way to ensure a long and healthy life.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Sam1911: Armed encounters are rare (for the by-far greatest percentage of the population who don't engage in certain risk behaviors), and those that do happen tend to be either a) somewhere out and about, in the 99.99% of society where it is utterly impractical to have a rifle within a few step's reach, or at home where you will almost certainly have some home defensive primary arm which might be a rifle or shotgun, or handgun -- but which won't provide an opportunity or reason to "fight your way" to a second firearm of any sort.

Yes indeed.

Situations where one starts off with a sidearm and battle to a more effective long gun are rare even in military situations (where the majority of troops aren't even issued sidearms) and are so unusual in US civilian life as to need a whole lot of story telling to explain how that scenario might develop.

A direct answer to the OP....