Range for handgun competency?

[Hangingrock]

Out side of qualification backed into shooting at 50yds more so than 25yds. The 50yd points were almost always open so I starting shooting that distance. I was rather good at 25yds and rather so-so at 50yds. That said I worked to improve my accuracy at 50yds which resulted in 25yds going from good to excellent.

At that time I was shooting on average 150-200 rounds a week end. Not much by todays standards but then I was loading on a Lyman Spartan single stage press.

That said at some point I started shooting B27 targets at extended distances beyond 50yds out to 200yds. Using a revolver(S&W M19 BL-6in) shooting sitting with back support and finally standing I was some what surprised what could be accomplished.

The 1911-A1 had a degree of difficulty that was nettle some at first. I’ll allow it was long-long first but eventually it became more of a hit than a miss.

Is it practical to shoot at those ranges? That’s up to each individual but it is and was a good learning experience.

 

[Kiln]

I'm done arguing, I'm obviously incompetent when it comes to the use of a handgun. Forget about the fact that within 25 yards I can draw a pistol and hit the target every time in slow or rapid fire. I'm a idiot for practicing switching between targets at close range, firing/reloading, and point shooting on top of regular range drills. A 50 yard firefight is possible but highly unlikely and even less likely that you're going to get randomly shot at from 100 yards away.

But alright I get it, welcome to the world of internet pros. Here's how I see it, the army says the effective range of a handgun is 50 yards but **** it lets double that because in the unlikely event that you actually get into a firefight its going to be some exotic scenario at great distance.

Here's the scenario that is most likely to play out:

Crook gets close and says: Gimme your money or I'll kill you.

*Crook pulls knife.*

*Civilian draws gun and defends self.*

Here's the scenario that internet pros believe will happen:

Crook yells from 100 yards away: "Gimme your money or I'll kill you."

*Crook then pulls out semi-automatic rifle and opens fire and starts an O.K. Corral style shootout.*

*Civilian pulls out handgun and skillfully drops him with ease then blows smoke from the barrel Dirty Harry style.*

 

[EddieNFL]

FWIW, this thread is riddled with more testosterone than it is with good information.

And a bit of estrogen.

I not sure there's a single answer to the original question.

...the army says the effective range of a handgun is 50 yards but...

Apparently, the USAF uses a different manual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Air_Force_Base

From approximately 70 yards away, Brown ordered Mellberg to drop his weapon. After Mellberg refused, from a kneeling position Brown fired four shots from his 9mm pistol, two rounds hitting the perpetrator in the head and shoulder, killing him.

Brown later said he thought he needed to hold over due to the distance, which was why the first two shots were misses.

 

[buck460XVR]

I think what this thread proves is that we all have our own perspective as to what constitutes competency. That doesn't make anyone wrong, just different. As with your choice of ammo used for SD/HD, one must also feel comfortable with their choice of training and shooting ability. True, we do have members here that believe their way is the only way and that the rest of us are just here for their advice, but for the most part, most of us follow the "different strokes for different folks'' philosophy.....as it should be.

I practice @ 50 yards with my handguns. Most of my revolvers are used for hunting and 50-80 yards with them is my comfort zone. I also practice @ 100 with them just to prove to myself that I can do it. I don't need to impress anyone else, I just need to be within minute of deer at that range. I also practice @ 50 yards with my 1911, basically because I'm used to that range and know it's completely doable. Moving up to 20 yards requires the same concentration on the front sight and a particular spot on the target, not the target itself. We can practice scenario after scenario, but odds are, when the SHTF, it will be completely different that what we have prepared for.

 

[Ankeny]

I'm obviously incompetent when it comes to the use of a handgun.

Nah, I don't think you are incompetent. I consider myself competent with a handgun, but I get out shot on the Internet on a regular basis. Don't let it get to you.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I think what everyone is trying to explain to you is that shooting at longer distances increases your skills, while shooting at close range doesn't. It isn't about scenarios, it's about increasing your skill level.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't consider myself an expert or pro. Any reasonable IDPA shooter would shoot circles around me. BUT, when I shoot, I do so to get better at it. I can make one ragged hole at 7 yards rapid fire, so why continue to shoot at that distance? The only way I can get better is to move further away and try to make one ragged hole at longer range at the same speed.
I can not make one ragged hole at 25 yards rapid fire, so that is my new goal. I will probably never achieve that, but if I don't challenge myself I can't improve.

If we were talking about skiing, somebody would say it's time to get off the bunny hill and try the more challenging slope. It's the only way you get better at something.

 

[Kiln]

1.I think what this thread proves is that we ll have our own perspective as to what constitutes competency. That doesn't make anyone wrong, just different. As with your choice of ammo used for SD/HD, one must also feel comfortable with their choice of training and shooting ability.

2.True, we do have members here that believe their way is the only way and that the rest of us are just here for their advice, but for the most part, most of us follow the "different strokes for different folks'' philosophy.....as it should be.

1. I completely agree with you and thats what I've been trying to get across but unfortunately I've been schooled with links from the past decade where a few isolated incidents happened at longer ranges.

2. You're telling me!

 

[KodiakBeer]

I completely agree with you and thats what I've been trying to get across but unfortunately I've been schooled with links from the past decade where a few isolated incidents happened at longer ranges.

That, and ignoring every other post that contradicts your position.

 

[Kiln]

That, and ignoring every other post that contradicts your position.

I'm just tired of trying to defend my position from so many ****ing posters who should be out shooting competitions and making money rather than arguing with me since they can shoot so well. I've been arguing all day and I'm tired of it.

Basically what I've said is this:

"I practice for up close because thats where most confrontations actually happen. At a range of 25 yards I am excellent, at a range of 50 yards I am good enough, and at 100 yards its so unlikely that you'll be attacked barring a crazed sniper on a rampage for no obvious reason that there's no point in constantly training proficiency at that range."

Here's the argument I'm getting:

"You're being a dumbass, if you can't shoot something at 100 yards off with your pistol then you're dead meat. Shooting far off makes you better at shooting targets within arm's length."

Being a crack shot at 100 yards doesn't make you react quickly if two guys attack you from ten feet away, thats what close shooting drills are and where being able to point shoot is important. Popping targets at 100 yards is not the same. Thinking that shooting at something at extreme distances is going to make you fast at close range is wishful thinking...at very close range you don't look down the sights and carefully line up to get the perfect shot.

 

[KodiakBeer]

What you're ignoring (and this makes up the majority of the posts you disagree with) is that one trains to improve. If you have mastered quick and accurate fire at 10 feet or 7 yards or whatever it is, then one can only improve by backing off and mastering it at a further distance.
Doing so at a longer distance doesn't degrade your shooting at a close distance, it only improves it.

From what I'm reading, the 100 yard examples are just sort of making the point that handguns are more accurate than people realize. Nobody is saying that people should practice 100 yard shooting as a realistic training exercise.

The weak link is always the shooter. You can only get better by increasing the distance at which you shoot. I'm probably a lost cause because my eyesight is degrading faster than my shooting improves. Ringing a 6 inch going at 25 yards rapidly (well, fairly rapidly) is probably as good as I'll ever get. But, I'll continue to try and do it faster and when I'm satisfied (if I'm satisfied), then maybe I'll move it further out, or get a smaller plate.

You have to challenge yourself. You don't have to challenge me. You don't have to challenge Joe IDPA and his race gun. You don't have to challenge Joe Internet who claims to shoot one-hole groups at 50 yards all day long. You only have to challenge yourself.

 

[CraigC]

Firstly, there is no reason to get so defensive, nor is there any reason to bring out the "F" word. You have NOT been called a dumbass, incompetent, treated as such or ridiculed in any way, shape, form or fashion. Let us not forget, Mr. Kiln, that the only name-calling in this thread has come from you. We've tried to help you, open your mind and expand your horizons, only got called liars and elitists in return.

Seems to me that being proficient at 50 yards isn't that important IMO.

This is your statement that started it all. What you received in response was a whole slew of respectful posts from folks for whom it IS important and why.

What you're ignoring (and this makes up the majority of the posts you disagree with) is that one trains to improve. If you have mastered quick and accurate fire at 10 feet or 7 yards or whatever it is, then one can only improve by backing off and mastering it at a further distance.
Doing so at a longer distance doesn't degrade your shooting at a close distance, it only improves it.

From what I'm reading, the 100 yard examples are just sort of making the point that handguns are more accurate than people realize. Nobody is saying that people should practice 100 yard shooting as a realistic training exercise.

The weak link is always the shooter. You can only get better by increasing the distance at which you shoot. I'm probably a lost cause because my eyesight is degrading faster than my shooting improves. Ringing a 6 inch going at 25 yards rapidly (well, fairly rapidly) is probably as good as I'll ever get. But, I'll continue to try and do it faster and when I'm satisfied (if I'm satisfied), then maybe I'll move it further out, or get a smaller plate.

You have to challenge yourself. You don't have to challenge me. You don't have to challenge Joe IDPA and his race gun. You don't have to challenge Joe Internet who claims to shoot one-hole groups at 50 yards all day long. You only have to challenge yourself.

^^^I don't know how it can be any clearer than this.

 

[EddieNFL]

I consider myself competent with a handgun, but I get out shot on the Internet on a regular basis.

Sign up now for the 2012 Internet Championship. I've ordered a custom built mouse.

 

[Kiln]

I'm not going to be convinced that there is any reason I should train for 100 yard engagements because to put it simply, I'm not a law enforcement officer, a cowboy, or the star of a Hollywood action movie. My life is not an 80s' movie full of bad guys with uzis that want to kill me and frankly the chances of me ever being in a shootout are slim anyways let alone at great distances. I don't shoot competition, can't afford to shoot at great range to challenge myself, and I don't feel the need to train past 50 yards for a defensive situation because statistically engagements past that are unlikely.

Chances are I'll never be shot at and if I am then I'm sure I'll think back to this moment and remember how dumb I was, I'll also wish that one of you was there to execute the assailant with a perfectly aimed headshot from a hundred yards away while under pressure and being shot at...hey the human head isn't much smaller than a pie tin after all.

Also its easy to get outshot on the internet because it requires no proof of actual shooting skill. In fact you know what one time I shot a squirrel at 300 yards with my RG23. See what I did there? Thats how easy it is to be a good shot when you're on a gun forum and not at a range.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I once shot a running straw man at 900 yards with an Italian 1851 navy clone. See what I did there?

 

[catnphx]

Kiln said: Here's the scenario that is most likely to play out:

Crook gets close and says: Gimme your money or I'll kill you.

*Crook pulls knife.*

*Civilian draws gun and defends self.*

Here's the scenario that internet pros believe will happen:

Crook yells from 100 yards away: "Gimme your money or I'll kill you."

*Crook then pulls out semi-automatic rifle and opens fire and starts an O.K. Corral style shootout.*

*Civilian pulls out handgun and skillfully drops him with ease then blows smoke from the barrel Dirty Harry style.*

LMAO ... that was fantastically funny!!!

 

[Kiln]

I once shot a running straw man at 900 yards with an Italian 1851 navy clone. See what I did there?

You did exactly like everyone else in this thread making fantastic claims about their accuracy.

 

[Old Fuff]

Perhaps I am misunderstood, but I hope not.

I have not, and do not advocate long range shooting to be the principal tool in the kit. It is simply one of many skills that make up the total package. I would never recommend that one use the same technique against a threat at 10 feet as they would at longer, or even much longer ranges, or the other way around.

The need to perfect at least several techniques is dictated by the unquestionable fact that the one sure thing about a shooting situation is that the circumstances are unpredictable.

Over a long number of years I have known a number of men who’s knowledge of this subject was based on experience, not theory. One common denominator was that all of them were capable of doing what needed to be done, regardless of distance. I delved into long range shooting because it's likely the least understood technique of them all, while at the same time not particularly difficult to master. I had no intention of suggesting that either I, or the skills I explained were something reserved for some special elite. My personal exploits are not exceptional, and can be duplicated (and have been) by anyone who has the desire and follows what I explained in earlier posts.

Returning to the original post, the maximum range that one can affectively defend themselves is not necessarily the one they will have to respond to in a situation. It simply represents, in their own mind, the maximum distance at which they are capable of doing it, and it is probably dictated by the longest distance that they practice. Where the line is drawn is up to each individual, but I see nothing negative in making it as long as possible. This observation should take nothing away from a commendable effort to learn and develop other techniques that are more appropriate for other distances and conditions.

 

[CraigC]

Like the hordes of shooters at the indoor range banging away at 7yds, I'm afraid that Kiln is typical of those who think handguns are only good up to a certain range and that range is always under 25yds. Never bothered to try anything different and anyone who suggest they are actually good for something beyond that self-imposed limitation gets called a liar for their effort.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Like the hordes of shooters at the indoor range banging away at 7yds...

That's the mental image I get. There are so many people who go out and buy their first pistol (generally a Glock for some reason), then shoot patterns the size of a small dog in a silhouette target and think they know how to shoot. It can be so much more than that - a discipline, a sport, a recreational activity or simply defense training that you can take to higher and higher levels with practice.
Or, you can stand there and shoot paper at spitting distance and never master the weapon.

 

[Kiln]

Like the hordes of shooters at the indoor range banging away at 7yds, I'm afraid that Kiln is typical of those who think handguns are only good up to a certain range and that range is always under 25yds. Never bothered to try anything different and anyone who suggest they are actually good for something beyond that self-imposed limitation gets called a liar for their effort.

Like the hordes of shooters on internet forums around the world who claim to be tack drivers at 100 yards, I'm afraid that [insert forum member name here] is typical of those who like to play internet badass, claiming to be expert marksmen without proof. Anyone who suggests that they are full of crap catches hell for it from all the other guys who also like to play internet badass because they want to look cool.

I'm not going to get any more personal with the insults because honestly I'm on pretty thin ice as it is but I do enjoy the subtle way that you still managed to be condescending without actually directly insulting me, bravo.

 

[WNTFW]

From a defense perspective:
For a handgun I generally shot at longer distance than the average, 25 to 50 yards and more occasionally. 15 yards was fairly close for me. What I came to find was I was not that comfortable shooting at close distances.

The eye opener was a class that we put our nose to a paper target then drew and shot that target. We also shot from several compromised positions.

Handgun competency should begin at "0" and got out from there. Weapon retention, draw stroke and manipulations should be incorporated into the core competency.

I do think shooting at long range is helpful from a marksmanship stand point. Shooting up close is an often overlooked aspect. I would say it is even underrated.

 

[Baba Louie]

So what is the modern standard handgun shooting distance?

As you can see, it varies. For some, up close is good enough, and that's all the skill they need. Others who like to reach out there a bit need that skill, so they develop it. YMMV.

As a kid, reading some of Elmer Keith's writings on the subject, I became intrigued. Apparently the old man knew from whence he spoke. (Ahem...) They oft times do. Lifes little experiences being one heck of a teacher.

But, but, but, mutant zombie bears can come at you pretty quick in the woods from afar, so should I be carrying a 9mm or a .45? (j/k, but it is interesting to see differing POV so splendidly defended)

Enjoyed the conversation and the lessons learned within this thread. Hope future lurkers who want to learn about handguns do as well. Self defense is one thing, long range proficiency, another. Nice to have both sets of skills handy if need be. Not to mention a handgun or two nearby that you know can do both well... if need be.

Here's to hoping that need never surprises you outside your envelope.

 

[MtnSpur]

We may disagree, but I have no intention of shooting at you. Doing so would upset a whole bunch of moderators...

In my view, long range handgun shooting is unlikely to come into play in a self-defense context, but it can happen, and obtaining the ability to use it if necessary is neither expensive nor difficult to learn.

Anything is possible, some things probable and a few things certain. I, for example, can hit dirt at any distance with great accuracy

Am I a marksman, nope, but can I typically hit what I'm aiming at out to 25 yards with consistency. Practicing my close, middle and far target shooting as often as possible makes me understand my strengths and weakness' and what I need to work on.

 

[easyg]

If you can put all of your shots in a target the size of a human head at 50 feet away, and do it rapid-fire, then you're more competent than the vast majority of shooters I've met.



For want it's worth...

I would think that shooting someone 100 yards away and claiming it was self defense would be a real hard sell in the courtroom.

 

[Old Fuff]

I would think that shooting someone 100 yards away and claiming it was self defense would be a real hard sell in the courtroom.

It could make a difference if that "someone" was already shooting at you or others. You're missing my point. No skill or technique needs to be used, unless it becomes necessary. The problem is that if the need happened and you didn't have the skill, or haden't mastered the technique...

Oh well...