Making The Case For Distance Shooting

[mrokern]

My thoughts as well.I get that some of you think this is a waste of time/ammo, so just go and practice shooting tight groups at 7 yards from a stable Weaver stance, pretend no one ever gets in a fight that goes against the 'rules' (whatever the 'rules' are) and ignore my posts

You know, I rarely pull this card out, but as one of the very few people on this forum who have looked down the wrong end of a gun and is still breathing to talk about it do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth. Capice?

I never said it was a waste of time. Just saying there is a very limited application for it.

So go ahead. Be Dirty Harry and pull off Hollywood shots when adrenaline is causing your hands to shake and your heartrate to hit 180. I'm done in this thread.

-Mark

 

[Double Naught Spy]

This thinking is rational enough — if you only have so much allowed time to train and qualify your people, you have to train them in the most likely form of encounter they will face.

So did I miss it somewhere, smince? Did you put into place a plan that will be cost and time effective for police departments to be able to train all their people to be long range pistol shooters? I mean yeah, it would be nice if they were, but what you suggest simply does not appear realistic or cost effective. Officers certainly might be better off if they all became experts in hand-to-hand fighting first given the number of officers who are killed with their own weapons that are lost during scuffles.

 

[easyg]

To be more specific, not all encounters occur at bad breath distance. Also, sometimes displacing is not an option. Ever try to skeedaddle with toddlers? Yeah, good luck with that. You got small children, your options are limited and you get to run with what you brung.

But think about it for a moment....
You have toddlers with you.
Someone with a rifle starts shooting at you from 100 meters away.

You would rather draw your own pistol and start returning fire, against a guy with a rifle who is 100 meters away, while your toddler children stand beside you?

Chances are that the shooter is targeting you and not the children.
And in such a case you should run away from the children as fast as you can, to draw fire away from them.

 

[smince]

So did I miss it somewhere, smince?

In this instance, yes. Lee let this thread continue on how it applies to armed civilians. So your LE budget/training concerns are misplaced here.

Officers certainly might be better off if they all became experts in hand-to-hand fighting first given the number of officers who are killed with their own weapons that are lost during scuffles.

This should also apply to armed civilians. Not so much for the lost weapons aspect, but the fact that most encounters do happen very up-close and personal.

mrokern;
The only time I've been shot at was across a parking lot, so I think this would have been a good skill to have at that time (had I been able to have a gun there in the first place).

 

[roo_ster]

But think about it for a moment....
You have toddlers with you.
Someone with a rifle starts shooting at you from 100 meters away.

You would rather draw your own pistol and start returning fire, against a guy with a rifle who is 100 meters away, while your toddler children stand beside you?

Chances are that the shooter is targeting you and not the children.
And in such a case you should run away from the children as fast as you can, to draw fire away from them.

I have thought about it. That, and many other scenarios since kids came into the picture and concentrated the mind. (FTR, leaving toddlers alone & out in the open is not on any parents' short list of "What to do when danger presents itself.")

Small children can require enough cycles of brain processing power that maintaining one's awareness is difficult. Thinking on sceanrios beforehand helps to develop SOPs and civvie-equivalent react to contact procedures. Most focus on frequently occuring or high risk/vulnerability circumstances like getting the kids strappied into their car seats.

Reacting to a far shooter when my kids are present would go as follows:
1. Grab kids under arms. We have two, so this is do-able.
2. Move (using most appropriate means) to nearest cover, biased toward cover that makes our displacement go across the shooter's filed of regard. If cover is not practical to obtain, go prone with kiddos.
3. Once cover obtianed, execute the following in order most expeditious given the circumstances: keep kiddos proned out, call 911, return fire. The more secure the position (given cover and general defensibility) the less priority given to returning fire. If out in the open proned out, returning fire highest priority after keeping kids down.

I have done some longer-range training with handguns, but I am by no means at Seyfried (Seyfried had several good how-tos on this topic) or Keith-level with a hand gun. I have demonstrated that I can hit the standard full-sized prone target at 100 yards more than half the time with my 1911 (50%+) given hardball or my social ammo and a prone or supported position. That drops to around 25% with my .357mag snubby. Those two weapons are carried `90% of the time i carry. This is no great shakes, performance-wise, just a few outings to the range to determine their performance and figure out the elevation relationship between front & back sights. Of course hitting a larger silhouette target is easier and using my L & N frames (.357mag & .44mag, respectively) are easier to place lead on target at range. I assume the shooter will be prone and I'll have my usual CCWs.

Here is the target type I mentioned:

 

[Double Naught Spy]

This should also apply to armed civilians. Not so much for the lost weapons aspect, but the fact that most encounters do happen very up-close and personal.

Well we all just need 20 hours a week of high speed low drag ninja training all the way around, don't we? We need to be proficient with our pistols at close ranges with a whole myriad of styles and tactics inclusive of retention, instinctive, and aimed shooting. We need to be able to shoot our pistols at long range when we can't get to our long guns. Of course, this isn't just being able to hit stationary targets at 70, 100, or 200 yards, but to be able to guage the speed of moving targets and lead them appropriately. We need to be able to shoot our long guns well enough when we can get to them. We need to be experts in hand-to-hand as well. In short, we need to be better than professional law enforcement who isn't likely to be around when we need them in the first place. In short, we need a skill set for a lot of very obscure possibilities if we are saying that Joe CCW needs to be defensively proficient with his concealed carry gun at carbine distances. That is really asking for a lot.

Sticking to the long range pistol premise, for non-LEOs then, where is Joe CCW going to be able to train regularly that is going to allow him to practice, achieve, and maintain proficiency in long distance pistol combat shooting? First, we seem to have a shortage of ranges that will even allow simple close range practice of things like drawing from the holster and rapid fire, much less shooting on the move. Even fewer are going to have long range moving targets. So where is Joe CCW going to be able to go to get the practice that he needs to be proficient at a task for which he will have only the slimmest margin of ever needing? Once again, it goes back to infrastructure. Bullseye shooting at 50 or 100 yards is in no way the same thing as shooting moving targets while on the move or from behind cover at those distances.

 

[smince]

It's really not as difficult as you want to make it sound (for whatever reason). If I can find the time and resources to learn them, most everyone else (who really wants to learn) should be able also.

..no way the same thing as shooting moving targets while on the move or from behind cover at those distances.

I don't think I advocated trying to shoot targets at that distance while on the move. Heck, most seem to think shooting at CQB distance with any more movement than a single side step will result in zero hits and the death of every bystander in the vicinity.

IMO, this discipline would be more akin to pistol sniping. And any halfway decent shot should be able to at least get close enough to make a shooter reconsider his actions. And, admittedly, none of this will work well with your pocket J-frame or LCP. It will require dedicated practice and the dedication to carry a service-sized handgun.

But like I said earlier:

...just go and practice shooting tight groups at 7 yards from a stable Weaver stance, pretend no one ever gets in a fight that goes against the 'rules'.

You can (and will) do as you see fit to protect yourself and your family. Personally, I'm going to do anything I can that may give me an edge if it comes down to that.

...we need to be better than professional law enforcement

Yes, as a matter of fact, we do.

Everyone seems to be able to find the resources and time to do things they really want to do. This is no exception. This quote from the OP says it best:

We need to get our mindset wrapped around the fact that the handgun will do the job when you need it to.

 

[M2 Carbine]

IMO, this discipline would be more akin to pistol sniping.

I like that definition.
That's what I'll have to call it from now on, especially when the gun/shooter is supported somehow.

Like there's a big difference between shooting a rifle offhand and using a bipod, there's a big difference between shooting a handgun offhand and sitting using a sandbag. At least there's a big difference in my shooting.
For instance.

"Sniping" with the 2 inch S&W Model 60 at 100 yards while sitting isn't too difficult. (although I did get a number of "flesh wounds")
No misses. (I consider a hit anywhere in the silhouette as a hit)
(The white pasters are hits with a Beretta Minx 22 Short pistol, although as I recall I did miss about six times)

While standing when shooting the J Frame at 100 yards I only manage about 50 percent hits. (the date 1996 is when the ammo was loaded, not when the target was shot)

 

[Bubba613]

But think about it for a moment....
You have toddlers with you.
Someone with a rifle starts shooting at you from 100 meters away.

You would rather draw your own pistol and start returning fire, against a guy with a rifle who is 100 meters away, while your toddler children stand beside you?

Chances are that the shooter is targeting you and not the children.
And in such a case you should run away from the children as fast as you can, to draw fire away from them.

In all cases the correct course is to run away, preferably to the side.
A private citizen shooting someone with a handgun at anything over 20 yards is going to have a lot of explaining to do. I understand the average police sniper shot in an urban/suburban environment is well under 100 yards, maybe under 50.
Personally I cannot imagine a scenario involving that that could pass the laugh test.

That said, if someone wants to practice that, great. But the utility of it is limited.

 

[smince]

A private citizen shooting someone with a handgun at anything over 20 yards is going to have a lot of explaining to do.

I hear things like this often. Are there any test cases?

Whether it takes running away, or engaging, I'll worry about any possible legal actions after my family or self is safe. Same as an in-your-face encounter.

 

[M2 Carbine]

A private citizen shooting someone with a handgun at anything over 20 yards is going to have a lot of explaining to do. Personally I cannot imagine a scenario involving that that could pass the laugh test.

You have to qualify statements like this as to the state where shooting a threat beyound 20 yards is illegal.

In Texas I can name several actual shootings and can give scenarios where shooting a criminal at any distance is perfectly legal, even when you are not in fear for your life. We can use deadly force to protect property.

For instance, tonight, carrying a handgun, as I go out to check my place, if I see someone in or leaving one of my out buildings (30+ yards away) it is clear they decided to ignore my sign. If I do shoot them the distance will mean absolutely nothing.

 

[LEVRLOVR]

The only pertinent aspect of distance from an active threat is your ability (or lack thereof) to effectively put rounds into it to cease it being a threat.

 

[brucey44]

Wow this is one of the best threads I have read in along time. Thanks for sharing.
Being new here, I am happy to have come across this forum. Some great posters here with alot of knowledge. 10-15yds is the standard I would think for close range. You can expect to be hitting anything long range with a pistol.

 

[brucey44]

Great thread, one of the best I have read about this topic. Thank you for sharing.
I personally think that 10-15 yds is all that is needed for accuracy. Your not going to get anywhere shooting 50-70yds. Guess it depends on the pistol, but there is really no point IMO

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't think I advocated trying to shoot targets at that distance while on the move. Heck, most seem to think shooting at CQB distance with any more movement than a single side step will result in zero hits and the death of every bystander in the vicinity.

You may not have advocated it, but shooting on the move in defensive situation can be critical. While "most" may seem to think that shooting at CQB distances with movement will result in death to all the bystanders, most have little or not real experience in practicing such skills, in large part because most gun ranges will not allow such an activity.

So let's say for grins that you get to be stationary and your opposition who is firing at you with a rifle from about 100 yards away is moving laterally from right to left and firing at you, changing directions and moving left to right, much like in the North Hollywood shooting. Let's say the bad guy is moving at a casual 3 mph. That translates to 4.4 feet per second. Let's say you are shooting 124 gr. hollowpoint ammo with a muzzle velocity of 1200 fps with a sight axis 0.5" over the bore axis and sighted in at 25 yards. Where do you aim?

The drop will be about 10" difference from POA to POI. So a typical COM shot is going to be hitting around low gut/high hip level. If you actually aim at your aggressor while he is moving at simple walking speed, you will miss with every shot. It will take your bullet approximately 0.28 seconds to travel the 100 yards and in that amount of time your target will have move 15" and your shot will zip right by him.

Oh, but there is a problem or two. The ammo you are shooting only gets 1150 fps from your pistol and the guy is actually moving at 5 mph. You lead him by 15" because you know that aiming right at him will miss. The flight time is now 0.29 seconds and the aggressor is moving at 7.33 fps. That means he will have moved 25.5" during the flight of the bullet to him. You compensated by 15" and so he has moved 10.5" further than you anticipated and you aimed center mass and so you likely still missed the guy unless he is obese.

Of course, these are all just extremely tiny aiming adjustments at your end. After all, the aggressor probably only appears to be about the same width as your front sight looks (assuming you have a typical sort of combat sight instead of a very thin blade sight).

People often wonder how it was that the LAPD fired hundreds of shots at the North Hollywood bank robbers and were told to aim at the heads of the robbers because of heavy body armor but never managed to score a head shot. Between bullet drop and that the robbers staying in motion, plus the aspects that the typical LAPD street cops didn't qualify or train beyond 25 yards and did not train with moving targets, they had virtually no chance of hitting the heads of the robbers with handguns at long range except by random chance and that didn't happen.

If you watch the footage of the robbers in front of the wall of the bank, and behind cars, they pace back and forth while firing and you can see shots impact the wall behind them. They aren't even moving all that fast, probably much less than 3 mph and yet it was enough to preclude that vast majority of shots from even impacting them on their armor.

So the prospect of making effective hits on moving human targets a long ranges with pistols goes well beyond being able to hit a stationary target at distance on a bullseye range. That is a start and a good start, but how many Joe CCW types actually can even hit a stationary target at 25 yards 100% of the time? We see people qualifying for their carry permits who miss targets completely at 3, 5, and 7 yards or shoot 10-20" groups at 7 yards. And this doesn't even take into account issues of improper or atypical shooting stances, adrenaline dumps, being in motion, or bystanders and other influences of a real life long distance defensive shoot.

 

[mljdeckard]

I still don't see it being a better solution than issuing rifles. If they're a hundred yards away, I'm running, not shooting with a pistol.

 

[smince]

You guys are right. It's a physical impossibility to make a distance shot with a handgun under stress, so just disregard this entire thread. Can't be done.

I don't know what I was thinking

 

[Old Fuff]

You guys are right. It's a physical impossibility to make a distance shot with a handgun under stress, ...

Of course... Absolutely! I'm so glad you caught on.

But back when men were real men out on the western frontier, the U.S. Army's Manual of Arms covering the Colt .45, model of 1873 had trajectory tables out to 1000 yards.

No that isn't a typo.

The British S.A.S. regularly trained out to 200 yards with Browning Hi-Power's - but they were never in stressful situations...

I suspect that like many other things, long range handgun shooting is seldom used in the real world, but for the few that care, it doesn't hurt to learn how to do it. It's one of those things you can teach yourself.

One wise instructor told me years ago that the only things that were impossible were those that you thought were.

 

[Old Guy]

Man at 100 yd, or a big toe at 25?

Accuracy sometimes, is not that far a problem, but closer, and smaller, 25 yd's?
Like a big toe protruding from behind a tire!

You know where the shots came from, but the only target you have is a corner of a sneaker showing. Drop a round a few inches in front of the hidden toe!
Skid, whack!

You mostly can hit a man lying down hugging toe, and screaming, right now!

 

[easyg]

For instance, tonight, carrying a handgun, as I go out to check my place, if I see someone in or leaving one of my out buildings (30+ yards away) it is clear they decided to ignore my sign. If I do shoot them the distance will mean absolutely nothing.

If things were so black and white lawyers and juries would not exist.

What if the intruder was blind?

What if the intruder was a woman who was running from some guys who had tried to rape her?

What if it was a 18 year old autistic kid?

What if it were an off duty cop who was chasing a fleeing suspect?

Don't answer those questions, there are merely to illustrate that when it comes to shooting someone, and "The Law", things are never so black and white.
Your opinion that you can shoot someone, who was 30 yards away and not posing any threat to you, simply because you saw them exit one of your out-buildings, is not something any lawyer is going to want to take in to a courtroom.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Don't answer those questions, there are merely to illustrate that when it comes to shooting someone, and "The Law", things are never so black and white.
Your opinion that you can shoot someone, who was 30 yards away and not posing any threat to you, simply because you saw them exit one of your out-buildings, is not something any lawyer is going to want to take in to a courtroom.

We could "if" this and "if" that all day long.
IF I shoot or not will depend on the situation. Let's assume I have better sense that shoot in the cases you mentioned. I said, "if I see someone in or leaving one of my out buildings". In TX, deadly force can, and has been used many times, to protect or recover property.
If someone is in my buildings they had to break in, so I'm already on solid legal ground whatever I do.
And whatever I do will depend on the overall situation and what the person does next.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: ..................................................
............(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property

 

[content]

Hello fiends and neighbors// M2 Carbine thanks for the ammo tip and all the rest.

 

[M2 Carbine]

This is not LEO or civilian long distance pistol shooting but is an interesting example of using a pistol at long range quite effectively.

In the 1960's I was a flight instructor at Fort Wolters, the Army helicopter school in Texas.
About 1967 I had a student that had recently returned from Vietnam (and would be headed back as a helicopter pilot as soon as he got his wings and Warrant Officer bars).

One day one of his friends showed me a copy of the Silver Star Commendation my student had received as a Sergeant door gunner on a H-13.

The helicopter was shot down and ended up side down behind a dike in a large rice paddy.
The pilot was too injured to move and hanging in the seatbelt. The door gunner wasn't injured bad. His M60 was jammed in the wreckage. The gunner had a 1911 (he told me he always carried a 30 cal ammo can of 45ACP in the chopper).

When the Sergeant looked over the dike there was a single VC about 9 yards away. The gunner shot him with the 45.

I wish I had copied the details from the Silver Star Commendation but I didn't.
But what happened is, the VC came at him one at a time and the Sergeant killed them. Why the VC did this is any body's guess. My guess is they knew there was a M60 on the chopper and they thought the Sergeant was trying to sucker them out into the open.

In any case the VC came at him one at a time and the Sergeant killed them, a BUNCH of them.
I don't remember the number but I remember the number amazed me.

When rescued, and the body count and distance was measured, the Sergeant had killed the VC from 9 yards to 97 yards.



I do remember the distance exactly because at that time one of our helicopter mechanics was expressing doubt about my 1911 100 yard shooting ability. I was offering to bet on it.
My student heard this and told the mechanic, You had better save your money because I have killed VC at 97 yards with a 45 and my instructor is a better shot than me.
The mechanic backed out of the bet.



.

 

[Mandolin]

I've read a book by a Huey pilot in Vietnam (can't remember the name) who to de-stress, got a 500 round box of .45 ammo and went to the range and was soon hiting stuff at over 100 yards. Shootign pistosl at long range is posible, but stress won't help and pistol rounds at 100+ yards will be uselessly weak. Rifles and shotguns were made for a reason. And as for th 1000 yard pistol trajectory tables, just remember that military bolt-actions in the early 1900s had sight graduated to 2000+ yards. Anyone who can even see an enemy soldier at 2000 yards, much less hithim has realy good eyesight. I'm gues the 2000 yard mark was for Civil War-style Volley fire to harras the enemy.

 

[smince]

pistol rounds at 100+ yards will be uselessly weak.

See my link in post #10