What distance to practice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Posted by Sav .250:
Self defense is when you feel threatened.
Well, no. Self defense is when you have an objective basis for reasonably believing that if you do not defend yourself at that moment, you are likely to be killed or suffer great bodily harm, at that moment. You may use no more force than you have reason to believe to be necessary.

Hard to say at what distance that might be for you.
??

The distance you are proficient would be your range. More or less.
No.
 
I practice at distances ranging from 5' - 50 yds. or more.

I've personally experienced how fast someone can close the distance from 30', which is way faster than the average person can react. Drilling is absolutely essential, and without the necessary practice, most individuals would be in serious trouble.

As far as what distance constitutes legal self defense, only the circumstances can dictate that.

GS
 
Marksmanship vs tactical training.....

To be clear on a few points(and to clarify what Richard "Demo Dick" Marcinko was explaining), shooting at a 3" x 5" card on a human torso target is for basic marksmanship.
Shooting at moving targets or under stress is more of a tactical skill, IMO.
Id add that both are important for a CCW license holder or armed professional. ;)
To hit a 3" x 5" card at 30ft is a start. Shooting and moving, to hit targets from different angles/weak handed, etc are important too.
 
How far out could you use these before it would not be considered self defense

There is no definitive distance at which something is not self defense. As discussed early by another poster in general terms one can use lethal for if that personal reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. Words that are import in that sentence include reasonably believe (and it is an objective standard of a hypothetical reasonable person in similar circumstances), imminent, death, and serious bodily injury. It helps to remember though that the people that get to decide afterward may not themselves actually be reasonable people nor may they people capable of truly understanding the existing circumstances, even if they genuinely try to.

If an active shooter is at my work and takes a shot any me from the end of a the 50 yard hall way I would argue returning fire would be a justified use of force (no whether prudent or good tactics is another discussion). The point is there is no set distance at which something is no longer self defense. Now there may be distances at which the likelihood of needing to take a shot in self defense with a handgun is rather unlikely.

Sure, some do, but every time I was shot at it was from a longer distance, up to well over 100 yards.

CCW and LEO work are pretty different things. And the likely scenarios one will encounter are fairly different. One reason that patrol rifles have become common for officers.

Ken Hackathorn says that the vast majority of ones practice for defensive shooting should probably be done inside of 10 yards.
 
What I think this thread is really about is what should the priority in training be for a person interested in self defense. This need to prioritize is important given that most of us have limited time to train, limited opportunity to train with really good instructors, and a limited training budget. There obviously will be exceptions, unique circumstances, etc and it should go without saying that no one size fits all. That said here are some of my thoughts on the issue. If someone took a real interest in self defense and wanted to start from the ground up I would suggest the following:

1. Start working on strength and conditioning.

People generally don't want to hear this one. First of all it doesn't let you buy new toys or cool gear. Buying a new gun is more fun than doing burpees or running sprints. You cannot buy you way to an acceptable level of fitness. It also for most people isn't that hard to achieve. It just takes commitment and work. I place it first because being in decent shape enhances everything else and makes learning other things easier. Sucks to go to the shooting class and be so shot after a day that you cannot maximize days two or 3. I've seen that. Furthermore, a lot of self defense is fighting and a fight is a physical thing be it fighting unarmed, with an edged weapon, an improvised weapon, or a firearm.

Strength and condition can also be worked to into drilling other skill sets. Getting up and down from prone is like a burpee. Sitting up from supine is like a situp. Taking a knee is like doing lunges. You can build reps of those skills while getting some work in.

Hard workouts also develops mindset which really matters in fighting. You don't have to start crazy or go beyond your limits but start conditioning. Conditioning also has a short shelf life so it needs to be done on an ongoing basis.

2. Basic safety and gun handling:

Its axiomatic that one needs to understand how to safely handle a gun and operate it before one can train to use it or carry it in defense. This would include the four rules. Knowing how the gun works, how to load, unload, operate its various controls etc.

3. Basic marksmanship:

Things like sight picture, sight alignment, TRIGGER PRESS, grip, etc.

4. Basic defensive gun handling and shooting:

This would be the material you get in most basic hand gun courses. Things such as drawing from a holster, slide lock reloads, tactical reloads, clearing various malfunctions, doing the same strong and weak hand only. It may cover shooting from some basic positions and perhaps some degree of movement.

Besides learning the basic skills this is often a good way to sort out equipment. I've seen people at basic classes realize things like: my holster sucks and is an impediment to me, carrying my magazine there sucks and is an impediment to me, I can't shoot this tiny 380 nearly as well as the people around me are shooting their bigger guns, etc.

After getting good instruction practice, practice, practice. Much of this can be done without the use of live fire. One needs to drill this stuff until it is automatic and smooth.

5. A more advanced shooting class:

Often will get more into movement, use of cover, various shooting positions, more demanding drills, etc

Some of these may be specialty classes that deal with skills and tactics in and around vehicles (such as Viking tactics street fighter, or HSP darkness vehicles.)

6. Force on force/Close range classes.

Most people don't get to this step and they as a consequence never learn what they don't know. These classes open peoples eyes to the potential physical nature of fighting for your life. The tend to integrate empty hand, edged weapons, and firearms. A firearm is not always the best tool or the right answer. These classes can be eye opening to the danger presented by an attacker with an edged weapon. Class like this tend to be more physically demanding. They also tend to get down to the nitty gritty of the types of threats one is likely to encounter and needs to be able to deal with. I have in mind classes like those offered by Shivworks. Classes like this drive home that there is a difference between shooting and fighting. There is also a world of difference between static shooting on a single lane square range and training to fight with a gun.

That is just the gun stuff: If someone wanted to address all facets of self defense. And the reality is there is interplay between all of them IMHO. I would also suggest the following:

Get some basic Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and wrestling skills. A lot of the Shivworks stuff is using BJJ principles and applying them to real fighting, fighting in different environments like a car, and the presence and use of weapons. Sport grappling is not the same as fighting. However, someone that has a BJJ blue belt is light years ahead of someone who doesn't and can much more easily apply the principles to these new aspects.

Get some basic Muay Thai skills. In the absence of decent Muay Thai I would go with boxing. Most of what I said about BJJ applies to Muay Thai. If someone is interested I can explain why I say Muay Thai specifically. This is a great way to do start working on number one on my list as well. When you can condition and build skills at the same time its nice. I would start the Thai/BJJ right at the very beginning if I really was serious about self defense. By the time you work you way to the force on force and close distance type training you can have a great foundation and IMHO will get vastly more out of that type of training than someone who is just rolling in a weekend class and being exposed to any of it for the first time.

Do some edged weapon work. Most people totally underestimate edged weapons. Quite honestly I would much rather have someone pull a gun on me inside of five feet than a knife.


As that list shows there are a lot of things to learn and it takes time, effort and resources. There is no magic way around that. Now plenty of people defend themselves with a gun who have never done any real training. Just like people win fist fights that have never done any real training. Most people face relatively few threats in their daily lives and may think that it is just not worth that much effort, time and money. I'm not going to argue with them. For someone wanting to be as able as possible to deal with likely threats and who intended to carry tools to deal with them that is the basic road map I would follow.
 
Posts 28 and 29

Are right on point, for most people, in my opinion.

Age and physical limitations make some of the advice inappropriate for me, but if I were younger......
 
LE shootings, CCW events.....

I disagree that most LE shootings are vastly different from CCW/armed citizen lethal force events.
By in large, most officers will have lethal force events at ranges from 0-30ft.
Many, like armed citizens will be about 0-9ft away. :rolleyes:
It's dated but a older research study I read stated the avg range for a LAPD use of force(deadly force) was 28ft.
It should be known that these sworn officers like others do traffic or vehicle stops that might end in gunfights. :uhoh:
One recent study by a mid-west state LE agency showed approx 90% of the agency use of force events were in or near motor vehicles.
 
Posed by RustyShackelford:
LE shootings, CCW events.....
I disagree that most LE shootings are vastly different from CCW/armed citizen lethal force events.
By in large, most officers will have lethal force events at ranges from 0-30ft.
Many, like armed citizens will be about 0-9ft away.
It's dated but a older research study I read stated the avg range for a LAPD use of force(deadly force) was 28ft.
It should be known that these sworn officers like others do traffic or vehicle stops that might end in gunfights.
One recent study by a mid-west state LE agency showed approx 90% of the agency use of force events were in or near motor vehicles.
Well, there may be some overlap in terms of the distances involved, but I tend to think that there is a significant difference in the character of the encounters. That would influence how to train.

Sworn officers not only make traffic stops (a really scary job); they respond to reports of robberies, burglaries, fights in bars, domestic violence, and so on. They have a duty to head into trouble; they carry their firearms openly; that have less lethal options; and they often have backup.

The person who is not a sworn officer is likely not expecting trouble, or he or she would leave, and he or she is by definition in an defensive station, and most likely alone.

I lent my copy of Pincus Counter Ambush to someone, but if I recall correctly, the majority of the civilian defensive shootings in his (actually, Tom Givens') admittedly mall sample occurred within 15 ft.
 
well that is a question in a lot of aspects. i have lots of carry guns i shoot. my lcp 380 is just done at 10 yards for me, i cannot shoot that little thing with that god awful trigger any farther and hit anything worth bragging about. now my springfield xds i can hit 8'' metal plates at 50 yards all day. the same with my taurus 450 revolver and sig 938. and my SCCY cpx1 its a 35 yard gun on 8'' plates. last is my taurus 605 in 357 i can hit the plates at 20 yards double action and at 50 yards single action. so find your limits and practice around there until you can move back, but really no need IMO to go past 50-75 yards. all this being said if you can hit it at 50 yards then you can hit it in 15 feet for sure, kinda the aim small miss small mentality.
 
Kleanbore....

I read and understand the last post Kleanbore wrote. I agree with the statements.
Sworn LEOs or LEPs(law enforcement professionals) do carry weapons and engage violent subject at distances that vary more than most armed citizens/license holders.
My point on this topic is that consistant hits at 30 feet at a target 3" x 5" is a good start.

Shooting at CQB range; 0-3 feet shouldn't be avoided or ignored either.
Many critical incicents can be fast and ugly. :uhoh:
 
Posted by BigBore45:
all this being said if you can hit it at 50 yards then you can hit it in 15 feet for sure, kinda the aim small miss small mentality.
That may well be true in target shooing.

I do not think it is true when it comes to moving, drawing fast from concealment, and getting fast repeated hits into a moving target at close range.
 
There doesn’t seem to be a comprehensive tabulation of citizen involved shooting incidents as opposed to law enforcement incidents which are documented.

Each month in the NRA publication American Rifleman there is The Armed Citizen column. (Some may point out with a certain amount of validity that the column is slanted to show positive self-defense out comes.) If we average (6) reported incidents per issue that would be (72) per year and thus (720) per decade which would form a depository of information. If one were to tabulate (4) decades with (2880) reported incidents of people muddling thru defensive situations.

Right, wrong or indifferent they prevailed. The type of expertise, experience, and or training is unknown to a large degree. There are always those that’ll critique the reported events. The vast majorities of people in defensive incidents in my opinion are not going to be proficient in different types of skill sets such as combative hand to hand or have gone to Shooter-U for firearms training. There is always going to be what ifs.

Engagement distances are dependent on the situation of the occurrence.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a classic example of a classic "newbie" thought process. By "newbie", I mean someone just beginning the serious thought of self defense with a firearm.

A gunfight is first and foremost a fight. The gun is simply one of the weapons available to at least one of the participants. Focusing the the capabilities and limitations of a firearm are only a small part of the equation. If you carry a firearm as a weapon, not just a recreational shooter, you need to be able to put rounds on target both a spitting distance and at distances exceeding what any sensible person would call "reasonable" for a handgun.

The first thing to learn is that sight picture is a sliding scale of "good enough". Anything and everything from "in the general direction of the attacker" all the way to "highly refined sight picture and textbook trigger management" has a place, depending on situation. Most shooters fall into the trap of one extreme or the other. Just take time to peruse the point shooting threads here on THR. Some insist shooting beyond 21 feet is indefensible and nigh on impossible, others insist a proper sight picture is essential to any shot taken. They're both wrong.

What distance? As close as you can, then get closer. As far as you can, then get farther. Then get faster at both.
 
Posted by Hangingrock:
There doesn’t seem to be a comprehensive tabulation of citizen involved shooting incidents as opposed to law enforcement incidents which are documented.
That is true. We know of two small data samples--one from Rangemaster, and another, anonymous, from another city in Tennessee.

Each month in the NRA publication American Rifle there is The Armed Citizen column.
I've quit looking sat it, but as I recall, the majority of the incidents involve the home. The distances are essentially fixed.

Right, wrong or indifferent they prevailed. The type of expertise, experience, and or training is unknown to a large degree.
Most of the incidents seem to have involved some warning, and few if any seem to have required drawing from concealment while moving from one or more surprise attackers.

Engagement distances are dependent on the situation of the occurrence.
Absolutely!
 
I disagree that most LE shootings are vastly different from CCW/armed citizen lethal force events.
By in large, most officers will have lethal force events at ranges from 0-30ft.
Many, like armed citizens will be about 0-9ft away.

I would largely agree with KleanBore's response.

I agree with Rusty's point that most CCW incidents (and most LEO ones) are going to down at pretty close ranges. Nothing I wrote prior was intended to indicate otherwise. I also agree with rusty that 0-3 (I typically say 0-5) feet is where a lot of trouble happens. It is a distance where a gun may not be the superior weapon or the best first response. In my job I get to see a fair number of reports on violent incidents. Not many of them involve people shooting back at their attackers, but many are situations where it would have been justified had the person been so inclined. I also have occasion to watch A LOT of hours of police dash and body cam videos.
 
Practicing only for scenarios that can be imagined leaves out a lot of possibilities that could very well happen.
The universe doesn't care what we think it is.
It only makes sense to try to be prepared for everything, not just some things.
Especially for survival.
 
Posted by g. willikers:
It only makes sense to try to be prepared for everything, not just some things.
Most of us cannot do that.

I carry a firearm, a flashlight, and a cell-phone. I have more than one fire extinguisher in the house. I keep the doors locked.

But I do no have a bullet-proof car.

One has to choose which risks to mitigate, and how.

Most of us have neither the time nor the money to develop and maintain the skills to stop attackers at all ranges. We have to decide the distances at which to practice, based on risk analysis.

Most of us will likely choose 3 to 5 yards for most of our practice, and that should not mean fixed distances, slow fire, shooting at a preselected target, or drawing while standing still, either.

Some longer range practice is good, but the decision is akin to investment analysis. We have so much to invest. Where do we put it?
 
chief99 said:
My 2 carry handguns are the S&W M&P shield , 40 cal. and the Ruger LCP .380. I practice with the Ruger at 3 and 5 yards and the 40 out to 7 and 10 yards. How far out could you use these before it would not be considered self defense ?

There's no hard and fast rule that defines how far a shooting is considered reasonable. That all depends on the circumstances (it isn't as if 5 yards is automatically justified and 6 yards is automatically murder).

Practice at a variety of distances. I carry a Glock 26 for CCW use, and my better half carries a S&W Shield. I've shot both of these guns to 100 yards for practice.

Realistically, most of your defensive shootings (in fact even most LE shootings) will occur within 15 yards. But, if you can hit a target at 50 yards, you can hit a target at 15 yards. Give yourself a variety of drills: practice speed, practice precision, and find a balance between the two for any given distance you're shooting at.
 
Posted by coloradokevin:
Practice at a variety of distances.
I think that's a good idea.

Realistically, most of your defensive shootings ...will occur within 15 yards.
I would say well within 15 yards.

But, if you can hit a target at 50 yards, you can hit a target at 15 yards.
That may be true at the range, but I really do not think that someone who has spent his or her time practicing target shooting at 50 yards will be well prepared for defensive shooting at 3 to 5 yards.

Give yourself a variety of drills: practice speed, practice precision, and find a balance between the two for any given distance you're shooting at.
Good advice.
 
Kleanbore said:
That may be true at the range, but I really do not think that someone who has spent his or her time practicing target shooting at 50 yards will be well prepared for defensive shooting at 3 to 5 yards.

You're absolutely correct. It's the same reason that bullseye shooters often do poorly in IPSC matches.

I personally subscribe to the philosophy that you need to train in a variety of ways to be effective in a shooting. The guy who can shoot an accurate shot at 50 yards can make an accurate shot at 5 yards, but will probably shoot too slowly if they've only practiced at the longer distances (the point I think you were driving at). But, the person who only shoots at 5 yards may shoot quickly, while lacking the skills to shoot at longer distances.

That last part is something I've seen among some of our officers at work: they can quickly yank their gun and hit a man-sized target from 5 yards, but they start throwing shots off of the target when we back up to the 20 yard line. I've seen the other scenario play out in man-on-man drills, where the slow and precise pistol shooter is ineffective against the person who can quickly run a gun at normal defensive distances.

For me, if I feel my groups are starting to suffer at the 20 yard line during qualifications, I'll plan a longer distance shooting session on my next range trip. Conversely, if I feel like I'm shooting more slowly than I like during a qualification, I'll plan some fast-and-quick drills during my next range trip (using a shot timer, target transitions, etc).
 
coloradokevin,

I hear what you are saying and agree. I noticed at the last shooting course I went to, I was extremely fast and laser-precise (OK, heart and headshot/eye box precise-shooting DA with a Sig) at 5 and 7 yds. Past 7, my speed stayed decent but my accuracy fell to just almost all in the "A" zone 8" circle type area with a couple peripheral hits at 12-18 yds.

Almost all my practice is 7yds and under, fast and with movement. I need to focus a little more on some distance shooting out to 25 to shore up that weakness. I'm looking pretty good for over 95% of the distance where shootings occur.
 
Practicing only for scenarios that can be imagined leaves out a lot of possibilities that could very well happen.

If I cannot even imagine it how can I prepare for it.

I'd contend that a bigger problem is for people to focus too much on one preconceived scenario to the exclusion of other plausible (and often even more probable) scenarios.

It is impossible to be prepared for "everything." If you have limited time, money, opportunity to train it doesn't make sense to spend time training for far fetched threats to the exclusion of much more probable.

That may be true at the range, but I really do not think that someone who has spent his or her time practicing target shooting at 50 yards will be well prepared for defensive shooting at 3 to 5 yards.

I agree. I think that one of the issues is that fighting with a gun at 0-5 yards (and a lot of stuff is going to go down at 0-6') involves more than simply hitting the target.

I would agree that building as much capability as possible is a good thing.
 
Posted by BigBore45:That may well be true in target shooing.

I do not think it is true when it comes to moving, drawing fast from concealment, and getting fast repeated hits into a moving target at close range.
well you can never be prepared for that. so i guess what i am saying is practice and take yourself to the limits and hope for the best.
 
Though the distance is likely going to be short distance, I think you should also practice some at long distance such as 50 and 100 yards so you know what you and your weapon are capable of. Much like I think you should practice one handed, weak side, at moving targets, low light, etc. there is no way to know for sure what will be needed and the more things you try the better you are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top