What distance to practice

[old lady new shooter]

It's my understanding that defense of others is also allowed if the case is clear-cut. I recently saw an article on bearingarms where a young man shot from 40 yards away an assailant he saw threatening his (the young man's) father with a gun. The article said the young man was not prosecuted.

 

[zb338]

Go to a range where guys are shooting IDPA. This is a wonderful way
to practice pistol shooting of the highest order. I'm not saying that
these guys that shoot IDPA are ready for combat, but I would hate
to have a gun fight with a top notch IDPA shooter.

Zeke

 

[strambo]

Posted by strambo:I seriously doubt that you could get there from ten feet. From two arms' length yes, but not ten feet.

See this.

I don't know what you mean? If I can't get there from 10ft then how could my attacker? Wouldn't this mean there is no threat?

If someone is charging me starting from 10ft and I lunged in to strike as opposed to trying to draw and shoot, our combined closure rate would make contact in a fraction of a second.

The Pincus video is very gun-centric which makes sense as it is a shooting class, but he is logically incorrect when he states that going H2H at more than double arms length is not an option. If it is an option for the attacker, it is an option for you, time and space are the same for everyone.

If choosing to go H2H for whatever reason is not an option (age, lack of training, physical issues), Pincus is 100% correct IMO in that your best bet is to draw and shoot while moving rapidly offline preferably to the rear to maintain distance.

However, if they can close distance to attack you, you can always close and attack them...to say otherwise is not logical.

I would just challenge everyone to get out of the rigid gun-only paradigm. Firearms are by far the most effective personal defense weapon ever devised, truly the great equalizer. However, they do have some serious limitations and are not always the best or only answer.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by strambo:

I don't know what you mean? If I can't get there from 10ft then how could my attacker?

The point is that you would be unlikely to get to him in time to prevent him from accessing his weapon.

Wouldn't this mean there is no threat?

No.

The Pincus video is very gun-centric which makes sense as it is a shooting class, but he is logically incorrect when he states that going H2H at more than double arms length is not an option.

The subject at hand pertains to the distance at which to practice with a firearm.

If it is an option for the attacker, it is an option for you, time and space are the same for everyone.

Alrighty then. He can draw and you can draw.

You have a tie. I do not like that outcome.

If choosing to go H2H for whatever reason is not an option (age, lack of training, physical issues), Pincus is 100% correct IMO in that your best bet is to draw and shoot while moving rapidly offline preferably to the rear to maintain distance.

"Choosing to go H2H" does not sound to me like a good idea for defending against a man with a deadly weapon, unless one is so close that one can prevent his draw--say, two arms lengths.

However, if they can close distance to attack you, you can always close and attack them...to say otherwise is not logical.

If there is reason to believe that one faces an imminent attack by someone with a deadly weapon, "attacking" that person without using deadly force would be an extremely high risk strategy.

I would just challenge everyone to get out of the rigid gun-only paradigm. Firearms are by far the most effective personal defense weapon ever devised, truly the great equalizer. However, they do have some serious limitations and are not always the best or only answer.

Good thinking.

 

[bassdogs]

Isn't this discussion getting off topic a bit? Specifically that practice doesn't need to be limited to just 5 to 10 yards, and nothing closer or at a greater distance. What I believe is "best practice" in SD pistol practice is to dedicate most of your practice time [rounds] to the most likely distances you might face in the real world. Practice shots at 30, 50, or longer are probably not a bad idea but are more for "can you make the shot" rather than true SD practice. Learning your limitations with a handgun is a good thing. Spending half your rounds shooting at longer distance is not.

To many shooters miss the point when they think sending rounds at a man sized target at 5 to 7 yards is just wasting ammo. There is a real difference between SD shooting; react, draw, and shoot and bullseye shooting.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by bassdogs:

Isn't this discussion getting off topic a bit? Specifically that practice doesn't need to be limited to just 5 to 10 yards, and nothing closer or at a greater distance.

I think it's about more than to what it should not be constrained. I's about where one should practice the most, and how and why.

What I believe is "best practice" in SD pistol practice is to dedicate most of your practice time [rounds] to the most likely distances you might face in the real world. Practice shots at 30, 50, or longer are probably not a bad idea but are more for "can you make the shot" rather than true SD practice. Learning your limitations with a handgun is a good thing. Spending half your rounds shooting at longer distance is not.

I agree completely.

To many shooters miss the point when they think sending rounds at a man sized target at 5 to 7 yards is just wasting ammo.

I'm not sure what you mean. If hitting a man sized target is the best one can do, one is in trouble. Think upper center chest.

There is a real difference between SD shooting; react, draw, and shoot and bullseye shooting.

There sure is.

 

[strambo]

Kleanbore
If there is reason to believe that one faces an imminent attack by someone with a deadly weapon, "attacking" that person without using deadly force would be an extremely high risk strategy.

"Deadly" force is not limited to a projectile weapon (or a weapon at all). Especially a pistol with both an a. notoriously low lethality rate and b. taking a long time to have an effect (7-30s after a heart shot).

So, I don't feel concentrating on the handgun only and relying on it to stop someone charging in to stab (bludgeon, shoot, whatever) you at 10ft is necessarily a good plan (maybe, maybe not, depends on one's options and the execution).

Lethal is lethal, it makes no matter what if any tool is used. Charge in full speed (you'll be there in 1.5 steps) and slam your forearm into their throat with all your weight driving through them and I guarantee it will have a greater (and immediate) effect than 2 pistol bullets to the torso.

It is a gross-motor movement, not hard to do. You do have to hit your target, but slamming the 1ft long section of your forearm into the cylinder of the throat area is one of the easier H2H strikes to manage. That is just one option of many and it is a lot easier than the draw while sprinting away and shooting drill. Not that I'm knocking that either, it is a good drill and skill if the gun is your best option.

"There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men" -Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by strambo:

"Deadly" force is not limited to a projectile weapon....

Very true indeed.

....(or a weapon at all).

That brings the concept of disparity of force into the equation. Wouldn't apply in most cases for me.

Especially a pistol with both an a. notoriously low lethality rate and b. taking a long time to have an effect (7-30s after a heart shot).

Try persuading anyone that shooting someone with a firearm does not constitute the use of deadly force. Tell us what you find out.

So, I don't feel concentrating on the handgun only and relying on it to stop someone charging in to stab (bludgeon, shoot, whatever) you at 10ft is necessarily a good plan (maybe, maybe not, depends on one's options and the execution).

Well, if you have a blade or a cane or a bat or a crowbar, you may want to use it. Any of those will likely be considered deadly force.

I might bring my cane into play, but I will not bring anything sharp into a use of force encounter if I have any alternative at all.

No, one should not expect a handgun to stop someone in his tracks. I would be moving, and maybe using a cane or a shopping cart, depending upon the situation, to slow the attacker.

Charge in full speed (you'll be there in 1.5 steps) and slam your forearm into

their throat with all your weight driving through them and I guarantee it will have a greater (and immediate) effect than 2 pistol bullets to the torso.

It is a gross-motor movement, not hard to do. You do have to hit your target, but slamming the 1ft long section of your forearm into the cylinder of the throat area....

You are missing the point. You are too far away to control his weapon, and if he can access it, you will be in a world of hurt.

Within two arms lengths it would be a good idea to try something like that, but don't forget t control his weapon arm before you start for his throat.

That is just one option of many and it is a lot easier than the draw while sprinting away and shooting drill.

It may sound easy, but it is also extremely dangerous.

 

[strambo]

Kleanbore, if you crush someone's throat, whatever they were holding in their hand becomes irrelevant. I do not concern myself with controlling someone's weapon, I couldn't care less...

What I described is probably, objectively the safest way to handle a charging knife wielding attacker, yet I get flack about it because subjectively it doesn't "feel" safe because you aren't controlling the knife and aren't getting away.

Back to objective reality, you would be slamming your whole body mass into their throat at full speed...it will take them out of the fight, everything else is moot.

I have a 1-track mind in a violent encounter, injure them until they are non-functional. That's it. I will injure them via the most effective means I have available be it firearm, forearm, club or knife. Makes no difference to me. I don't care what they are doing or what their plan is, my plan is to shut their body down. They can grab my gun, I won't even try to stop it, I'll be taking their eye out of the skull at the same time, they can try to hold onto the inanimate "gun" object while I do it...but they can't both take the gun and protect against getting their eye ripped out, they have to pick one in a fraction of a second.

You also keep mixing the legal concept of "deadly force" with the physical concept. Of course a firearm is always considered "deadly force" so what? That doesn't make it the most effective option in every circumstance to instantly stop a threat.

I believe it was you posting the thread about MacYoung's latest book "In The Name of Self Defense". Although he desperately needs a new editor, his background and knowledge is priceless. He discusses something very germane to what we are talking about, the concept of commitment.

He mentions that it doesn't really matter how good your "technique" is, but how confident you are that it will work and your commitment to it. Take the best fighting technique and do it hesitantly and it won't work. Take a crappy technique and do it all-in, all-out, and it will likely succeed.

What I am talking about is solid technique based on gross-motor skills with physics on one side, and vulnerable anatomy on the other, full speed, all-out, all in, full commitment.

Unfortunately we are at the internet forum limit, I could show you what I mean in a few minutes, but I can't type it any better.

The notion of being able to somehow "control" someone else's weapon and also somehow being able to counter-strike is the biggest fallacy I see in what is being taught out there. In a minute I could demo the impossibility of being able to control the knife hand of someone trying to shank you to death all-out...it isn't possible, so why try?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by strambo:

Kleanbore, if you crush someone's throat, whatever they were holding in their hand becomes irrelevant.

What he has already stuck into you, on the other hand, never becomes irrelevant.

They can grab my gun, I won't even try to stop it, I'll be...

Why would you ever expect an attacker moving at you from ten feet to grab your gun?

I do not concern myself with controlling someone's weapon, I couldn't care less...

If you are thinking about an arms length encounter, I think you should reconsider that.

But you mentioned ten feet.

What I described is probably, objectively the safest way to handle a charging knife wielding attacker, ....

If he doesn't stab you first. I would not gamble on that. He is an attacker, not a competitor in choreographed H2H combat.

If he is ten feet from you and is in the process of getting his blade into action before you even have a chance to start moving, worrying about striking his throat will not help you much.

Back to objective reality, you would be slamming your whole body mass into their throat at full speed...it will take them out of the fight, everything else is moot

If, and only if, you are not stabbed.

It is really not a "fight" (there is no starting buzzer, and he has the initiative), and what happens to him is only your concern insofar as it affects what happens to you.

I believe it was you posting the thread about MacYoung's latest book "In The Name of Self Defense". Although he desperately needs a new editor, his background and knowledge is priceless. He discusses something very germane to what we are talking about,....

One of the germane things he discusses at some length is the kettle of fish in which a defendant would likely find himself if the evidence showed that he had moved toward the attacker. Did you miss that part?

The notion of being able to somehow "control" someone else's weapon and also somehow being able to counter-strike is the biggest fallacy I see in what is being taught out there. In a minute I could demo the impossibility of being able to control the knife hand of someone trying to shank you to death all-out...it isn't possible, so why try?

If you cannot stop him before he uses his weapon on you, keeping him from using it is your first priority.

Rob Pincus shows how to do it, but only at at very close range.

At ten feet or more, it probably won't work, he suggests a better approach.

His objective is to avoid getting hurt. That would be mine. He does it by adding to the distance quickly to keep his blade from getting to you, and shooting as quickly as possible

 

[strambo]

Oh well, we're at an impasse and the limits of text on the internet. If we met face to face, we'd probably be on the same page in 5 mins and any mis-understandings ironed out.

So long as someone actually seeks out quality training and practices realistically, the details don't matter. Plenty of people survive w/o having a clue what to do.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by strambo:

If we met face to face, we'd probably be on the same page in 5 mins and any mis-understandings ironed out.

Yes, perhaps I have misunderstood you.

But I thought your statement

If someone was charging me from 10ft, I wouldn't try to draw no matter how fast I was, I'd lunge in (which would mess up their timing and give me more force) and go H2H.

...was rather clear.

You might be able to persuade me, via realistic FoF demonstrations repeated several times with several players at varying distances, that that might sometimes constitute effective tactics, for someone who can do it.

However, I do not see any way in which one could conclude that doing something that would result in video showing, and witness testimony stating, that a person had "lunged in" at someone else would be a good strategy for anyone trying to support a defense of justification on the basis of self defense.

But that could be tested, too. A few mock trials would be quite informative.

I think that the approach demonstrated by Rob Pincus would serve a defender much better in that regard. He does not just stand and draw, either. He is seen trying to get away from the attacker.

 

[strambo]

The key point is someone charging in...the distance will close in an instant...and you may not have any room to run. If 2 people move in from 10ft, that is only 1.5 steps each.

Yes, FoF in person what I'm saying would be clear. Stay safe,

EDIT: we are really talking mostly about nothing since the attack from 10ft is highly unlikely. They need to be closer than that to effectively rob or attack you, certainly before showing their weapon, or you might get away or they'll be seen etc. They'll be working to develop better positioning before tipping their hand like that.

As another aside, many stabbing victims report never knowing there was a knife involved until it was over and they saw the blood (they thought they were just being punched) so any technique that is different for a knife "knife defenses", controlling the weapon, isn't all that realistic if you don't even know they have it.

 

[AKElroy]

Posted by zuman:Two observations:

1. That's extremely fast--much faster than most people can do.
2. An average person can probably cover a little over ten feet in that time.

Might I respectfully suggest that what one does with a shot timer when one is expecting, no, planning to draw and shoot as fast as possible may not match what happens when one is surprised in a parking lot.

And then there is the question of what happens in the time the attacker is still moving after having been shot.

But we digress. The question was about distance.

In Tom Givens' description of what happened in over sixty actual shooting instances, 59 occurred within three to five yards; 3 took place at contact distance, and 3 were at more than fifteen feet.

Again, that is a small data sample. But also again, the commonly accepted reasonable judgment of a distance from which a person with a contact weapon would have the opportunity to harm a defender would put him not much farther away than twenty feet before starting an attack. And the likelihood will be high that he will not try to telegraph his intent until he is close. Those factors give us common sense reasons to believe that the distance will be short, consistent with Givens' report.

That should give us some guidance on what makes the most sense in terms of practice.

+1. The notion that any average Joe will be able to draw and effectively deploy a CH to stop a close, surprise attack is unlikely. That is a scenario I think about and train for, but it is not the reason I CC. I have family in Killeen. When the Luby's there was the target of one of our countries worst mass shootings, I remember calling all my family to see if they were ok. We frequented that Luby's. The stories of folks hiding under tables waiting to die, unable to defend themselves is why I CC everyday, everywhere.

In that scenario, unless you are the first one targeted, you can do something. In addition, when in scenarios where you see a potential threat coming, you can get a handle on that weapon prior to draw to see if your suspicions are correct, such as when pumping gas in a remote spot when an aggressive panhandler shows up. How do you determine his intent? I've had that scenario unfold twice, both times a direct "I've got nothing for you, man" was all that was needed. Hand was on the weapon, no draw necessary. The point is, you have at least some opportunity to prepare in those scenarios. But a surprise attack? Unlikely. At that point, you need training on weapon retention and use while in the middle of an attack. I think that is a far more complex scenario than simply speed and distance for drawing the weapon.

 

[bassdogs]

The point I was making about shooting at a mansized target at 5 - 7 yds [you commented you ought to be aiming at center mass] was not about only being able to "wing" the target at that range but rather that many shooters seem to think why waste rounds at such a short distance and prefer to spent more of their practice time and rounds doing "can you make the shot" set ups. We're on the same page with the need to focus on the center mass on the typical police target.

As for the topic moving off topic, it was more about the discussion of going rambo [hand to hand] inside a short distance and engaging various tactics and techniques. Going into that arena I am not meaning to demean those who have physical capabilities and training but rather that many of us [Me included] do not. To go Rambo for me would mean suicide and I would be better served by kneeling and praying for the best. For that reason and basic common sense my best form of defense is to avoid situations where personal attack has a higher possibility and relying on my sidearm in the rare situation where that fails. The more I practice at the shorter ranges with draw and shoot techniques the more likely I might be successful at SD at short ranges.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by AKElroy:

The notion that any average Joe will be able to draw and effectively deploy a CH to stop a close, surprise attack is unlikely.

Most of the defensive shootings reported by Tom Givens in the podcast with Mike Seeklander were what I would consider close (three to five yards, and a couple at contact distance); the attackers certainly intended to surprise the defenders; the defenders' firearms were drawn from concealment (from a drawer, in one case); they were effectively deployed; and the attacks were stopped.

Tom did not describe the distances at which the defenders started to draw.

The defenders were trained. Whether Tom would describe any of them as an "average Joe", I do not know.

Having said that, I must say that I really do worry about whether I would pull it off in the real world.

 

[AKElroy]

Posted by AKElroy:Most of the defensive shootings reported by Tom Givens in the podcast with Mike Seeklander were what I would consider close (three to five yards, and a couple at contact distance); the attackers certainly intended to surprise the defenders; the defenders' firearms were drawn from concealment (from a drawer, in one case); they were effectively deployed; and the attacks were stopped.

Tom did not describe the distances at which the defenders started to draw.

The defenders were trained. Whether Tom would describe any of them as an "average Joe", I do not know.

Having said that, I must say that I really do worry about whether I would pull it off in the real world.

I think back to one class I took, where the student carrying concealed was required to draw to stop a knife attack from 10 yards. The assailant pulled a knife and sprinted. No one in the class was able to produce a weapon in time, and we knew it was coming. This was a face to face attack, which I think would be very unlikely in the real world. As I practice drawing from concealment, I am further reminded that I am not likely to pull that off, and I need to really sharpen my situational awareness to minimize risk around that deficiency.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by bassdogs:

The point I was making about shooting at a mansized target at 5 - 7 yds... was ...many shooters seem to think why waste rounds at such a short distance and prefer to spent more of their practice time and rounds doing "can you make the shot" set ups.

Right.

Those who can avail themselves of a Dynamic Focus Shooting Class at a Gander Mountain Academy, or a Combat Focus Shooting class on the I. C. E. Peresonal Defense Network Tour, will hear those points over and over.

The distances are just a little closer, though.

As for the topic moving off topic, it was more about the discussion of going rambo [hand to hand] inside a short distance and engaging various tactics and techniques.

I think it is relevant to the discussion.

Rob Pincus demonstrates that for an extremely close encounter , practicing shooting is not gong to help much unless you are willing to accept being shot or stabbed, but for a slightly longer distance, there are ways for training in the use of the gun.

Rob uses the term "Ninja [stuff]" rather than "going rambo".

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by AKElroy:

I think back to one class I took, where the student carrying concealed was required to draw to stop a knife attack from 10 yards. The assailant pulled a knife and sprinted. No one in the class was able to produce a weapon in time, and we knew it was coming. This was a face to face attack, which I think would be very unlikely in the real world. As I practice drawing from concealment, I am further reminded that I am not likely to pull that off, and I need to really sharpen my situational awareness to minimize risk around that deficiency.

I hear you!

In the training referred to in my previous post, the defender draws while moving off line.

Could I do it? I hope I never find out.

 

[AKElroy]

Posted by AKElroy:I hear you!

In the training referred to in my previous post, the defender draws while moving off line.

Could I do it? I hope I never find out.

Agreed. One danger I see for folks that CC is relying on the deploying the weapon as the best way to avoid attack. If I were unarmed, what would I do if a knife wielding assailant were sprinting at me? Well, I would likely evade, try to increase the distance between us, focus on deflecting and isolating the knife when we get into direct contact. producing the weapon must be considered IN ADDITION TO these other defensive tactics, not to the exclusion of. In fact, attempting to produce the weapon in that scenario might well leave the victim without the use of their arms and hands (as they are being occupied with drawing) when arms and hands may well be the better defensive choice in that scenario. I can think of numerous situations where deploying a concealed weapon might not be the highest priority for avoiding injury in an attack.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Video - Gunfight at the post office (Brazil)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b04_1430996002

Robbery foiled by police

I'm not sure if this is a repost. Bandits robbed a post office and were surprised by a off duty cop. A bandit assaulted inside the agency and the other watched the door. When an off duty cop entered the agency the employee who was on the other side of the counter signaled discreetly to him that they were being robbed and the police wanted to leave the place and this time was prevented by bad guy and that's when he began to exchange shots.

 

[j1]

Shoot as well as you can. The decision to shoot and how far to shoot is yours.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by j1:

Shoot as well as you can.

Of course, one has to define what that means.