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

[Sam1911]

Yeah. It used to be that very few soldiers or Marines were issued sidearms, but I think I'm to understand that it has become more common recently. However, the few instances I've read of which involved a soldier actually drawing and firing their pistol were all cases of primary weapon malfunction so s/he was transitioning TO the pistol, not to the rifle.

And that's the sequence that I've always seen in training classes, too. Can't recall ever having been run through the sequence of firing the pistol and then transitioning to the long-gun. (Though I have set up a few IDPA scenarios that ran something like that back in the day. )

 

[Phaedrus/69]

For civilians I think the idea of the "pistol to fight your way to a rifle" is like having a small parachute to get you to your "real" parachute. If you bail out of a plane it will be with whatever you have on you. If you need a firearm you'll almost certainly have to make do with the one that's [hopefully already] in your hand. If you could get to another option you probably aren't in a true self defense situation.

I will note that LE often can't fight their way to a rifle, either. There is one pretty well publicized and discussed story that describes a cop being pinned down by gunfire from a wanted fugitive. He had an AR in his trunk/car somewhere but no ability or opportunity to retrieve it. When the fight began he had no option but to fight with what he brung. This is the most likely situation for a citizen at home. If you hear breaking glass and investigate with your sidearm, under what circumstances would you envision being engaged by an invader that gives you a break to get back to your rifle? And why wouldn't you have taken your rifle in the first place if you had one?

One can't rule out the possibility of having an opportunity to fight your way to a rifle but nor should you bank on it.

 

[JohnBiltz]

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?

Long enough that they are not going to run off out of fear of the police arriving while everyone is firing at each other.

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?

Pretty much from a practical standpoint but not if you are enjoying it. No, you don't need a 2,000 round week long training course to shoot an AR across a room. I keep an AR as my bedroom gun but if I'm fighting off home invaders from my living room I will never reach it. But I might well pick it up if I hear my security door go.

I've said this before but most of us shoot because we enjoy shooting and then justify it however we want. An amazing amount of people manage to defend themselves with a gun with no real training at all. People did this for well over 100 years without the existence of a single training academy or training courses. Now if you can find several instances of someone drawing their sidearm and using it to fight their way to a long gun then maybe I will change my mind. But I'd bet 99.99% of the time the fight starts and ends with the gun you started with and 99.9% with the rounds you had in the gun and no reload involved. Because almost everyone realizes first that "What the (expletive of choice) am I doing in a gunfight, I might get killed" and secondly the cops are on the way.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Heh! This has been a fun string to read! I rather like Sam1911's posting exerpted from another posting.

In a similar vein in a discussion I had with someone many years ago about fights, the guy told me that he'd just get his gun out of his car and shoot me. I told him there was a serious flaw in his battle strategy which, of course, he wanted to know. I said "What makes you think I'd let you get to your car in the first place?"

I'm of the opinion that the whole point of a firearm of ANY kind when it comes to self protection is to get one's keister out of whatever deadly situation one should fall into. How, exactly, one does that is based entirely upon the situation at hand. Maybe I need to retreat. Maybe I need to hunker down and call for help. Maybe I need to shoot someone. Maybe I need another weapon.

I'm not "fighting my way to my rifle". I'm "fighting for my life and freedom by whatever means necessary".

 

[george burns]

It all depends on what your up against, for suburban living 9mm or 45 should do the trick, let's just say if I need body armor I am trying to get clear of the area as soon as possible. In a shootout, you normally would have on street clothes. If someone started shooting an AK at on comers, I would try to use my weapon for cover fire, and get my butt as far away as possible. Only engage as a last resort. If I had access to a long gun I would engage a single target, but still we don't speak about protection enough, if a guy could advance on my position while taking shots to the body and legs, I would either get out or if not possible aim for the head. In some cases it's not a matter of stopping the threat, it's saving your life. The likelihood is that a gunman is going to take the path of least resistance, unless you are blocking it, you should be thinking of surviving instead of how you are going to get to your rifle.

 

[Wanderling]

I've heard off and on the general aphorism of a handgun being the weapon you use to hold off the threat until you are in a position to access a rifle.

If that is true, would a rifle be the gun you use to hold off the enemy until you can get to your ATGM? And the ATGM being what you use until you can get to your howitzer? And a howitzer what you use until you can fight your way to your A-10 Thunderbolt?

Just kidding. But I'd like to know what the consensus is here on the pistol being what you use to defend yourself until you can get to the rifle.

As a soldier you don't have much chance in a firefight with just a handgun, you'd be severely outgunned and outranged. AK-47 is pretty accurate up to 300 yards and shoots 600 rounds per (second) minute, no way you'd be well armed with a 15-shot Beretta.

Has nothing to do with civilian SD situations.

 

[LockedBreech]

It's a popular slogan on gun forums, but it doesn't remotely reflect reality. In the unlikely situation the average Joe is in a shooting incident, it'll be a frantic handful of shots with perhaps a heartbeat of warning. It won't be a tactical dash to another weapon.

I mean, it's good to have a rifle, of course, but I think the aphorism is mostly fantasy unless you live in Detroit.

 

[strambo]

If you have a suitable rifle, it should be what you grab 1st in a HD scenario, hence, no need to fight to it. Outside the home all you'll have is what's on you...which probably isn't going to include a rifle.

 

[ADRskew]

http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/
Here is the story, well part of it. Some where I will dig up the original text. Still its a good read.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

As a soldier you don't have much chance in a firefight with just a handgun, you'd be severely outgunned and outranged. AK-47 is pretty accurate up to 300 yards and shoots 600 rounds per second, no way you'd be well armed with a 15-shot Beretta.

Has nothing to do with civilian SD situations.

600 rounds per second, huh?

On full auto, that would empty the 30 round magazine in 5 hundreths of a second. Pretty impressive!



I'm thinking you meant 600 rounds per minute. But good point, anyway!

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/
Here is the story, well part of it. Some where I will dig up the original text. Still its a good read.

Oh. My. GOD!

THAT was HILARIOUS! I remember GoWolfpack telling me something about this guy a while back, but I never read up on him.

Man, I wish I had been around to have seen his posts "live".

I'll have to save that link!

 

[Jlr2267]

Mall ninjas...good times, those were!

 

[HoosierQ]

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

Well I was referring to the 2003 war. However I do concur with your assessment. I guess it was at that time that I started hearing these things.

I remember the Cold War. People in those days had "bug out rooms" and "bug out bunkers" in case the H-Bombs started raining down!!!

 

[redneck2]

FWIW...I had a co-worker that was in Iraq 1.0. He was in some kinda of intelligence, logistics, etc. Don't remember exactly. So anyway, he is kinda behind the front lines doing some kind of logistics.

He decides to go into a bunker to see if he can find any kind of loot or something cool to take home. Supposedly all the bunkers had been cleared. As he's going thru the bunker an Iraq soldier comes around the corner from the other direction. Fortunately my co-worker has a 9mm in his hand, which he can pull up faster than the other dude can get his AK up. Dumps the mag into him and lives to see another day.

 

[Wanderling]

600 rounds per second, huh?

On full auto, that would empty the 30 round magazine in 5 hundreths of a second. Pretty impressive!



I'm thinking you meant 600 rounds per minute. But good point, anyway!

Yes, per second ! And they come with 6,000 round magic drum magazines !!!

Good catch, sorry, of course I meant per minute. Still think it's a valid point.

Actually, in a statistically typical SD situation, having a semi-auto AK or other long rifle slung over your shoulder is probably less preferable than a pistol. Not really for close quarters, takes (a split second) longer to aim, can't shoot as fast, easier for a BG to grab / wrestle it away from you.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

At Thunder Ranch, I heard Clint Smith repeat the mantra that a pistol is the weapon you use to fight your way back to your rifle that you should not have put down in the first place. Neither time did he have a rifle with him when he said this and he was in a position/job where he could carry a rifle at work, no problem.

Curious, did you point this discrepancy out? If so what was his response?

 

[ACP]

What ATL Dave said in the first response.

Nobody here is likely to be engaged in a firefight where they have to retreat to use a rifle to continue the fight. It's just keyboard commandos.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm done typing on my tablet with its lousy 1.2GHz chip and feel it's time to move upstairs to me desktop with its 2.3Ghz chip

 

[Sunray]

"...the whole trunk hun..." Genghis Colt? Or is it Samuel Khan? snicker.
"...in a position to access a rifle..." If you're ever in that situation, you have made serious tactical(not always just a marketing term) error. And the Zoomies don't like A-10's. Not complicated enough.

 

[george burns]

I would still think that 15-20 rounds on 9mm coming at you would still be a pretty good deterrent for that guy with the AK, to stop firing long enough to get clear in most circumstances. Also as we know firing full auto is not the most accurate thing in the world when holding down the trigger. Assuming he has to stop at some point, 'usually in a few seconds" you would have time to keep his head down until you got clear.
Especially if there were 2 or 3 guys with pistols.
This again enters the area of body armor, whoever has it is better off.

 

[mac66]

I hesitated getting into this because I think there are some circumstances in which a pistol would be useful and a rifle/shotgun would be more useful.

I do however think that "fighting your way back to your rifle" is a misnomer. The term should probably be "defend with a pistol until you can get to your rifle."

Being armed in the first place is the key thing when a threat is imminent. A pistol allows that until one can get better armed if needed.

Case in point...I was working on my deer blind when a black bear popped out of the bushes about 10 yards away. I was carrying a 44 mag revolver but my 12 ga was on my ATV about 10 feet away. That bear didn't run as they usually do even after making a loud noise. I drew my pistol and backed toward my shotgun. He then decided to leave. I didn't have to "fight" but I was glad I was armed at least with a pistol. I would rather have had the shotgun closer however.

I also remember reading a case in Detroit where a woman was confronted by some thugs in her driveway. She pulled a small pistol and retreated into her house. The thugs then invaded the house thinking she wouldn't fire on them having just retreated. She in fact retreated to retrieve her Hi-Point Carbine which she then used to shoot several of them who had followed her into her house. She technically didn't have to fight with it but that pistol made the thugs pause long enough for her to get to her rifle.

 

[Agsalaska]

I didn't read thru four pages of posts, but its pretty much a bunch of nonsense.

 

[SFsc616171]

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

I once lived, with a metal baseball bat, within reach.

I moved, and 'upgraded' to a Cold Steel kukri.

After being in a Hurricane Katrina shelter, I witnessed that my 'position' was a little weak, so when I moved to a new town, I 'upgraded', in time, to equip the house with a handgun.

As history and time moved along, after re-evaluation, again, my 'position' was weak, so I 'upgraded' to a chl, and a 'trapper large loop' lever action in a revolver caliber, for the home.

Now, I do not have to 'fight to get to the rifle', for it is the primary domicile defender tool.

(Why the big 'd' lever loop, he asked. Dental, just like the Duke did, was the reply.)

 

[we are not amused]

I don't think the phrase was ever intended to be taken literally. It is just a colorful way of stating that a rifle is usually a better option than a handgun.

jmr40 said all that really needed to be said.

 

[george burns]

Well being that it is said constantly, there is no harm in discussing it here, and putting it to bed.

 

[short barrel]

It's my opinion a battle rifle for a civilian is the thing you keep in your house against the day the lights go out and the meanies try to overrun your property.

Mine is an M1A with very many magazines and a stockpile of ammo.

I think that day is a lot closer than people like to think about. The U.S. has no scriptural guarantee (or even a mention). We could so easily fall into permanent chaos. If I were younger, I'd be a prepper.