Why to sight a 1911 for 100 yards.

[Cosmoline]

I agree 100% that long range handgunning is a load of fun for small game hunting and range plinking. However, I disagree strongly about its tacticality. IMHO even thinking about engaging a foe at that distance is dangerous. Let's play out the problems:

--Power issues. Handgun bullets tend to be short, fat, and have a horrible BC. Simply put they lose what little steam they had very quickly. In many cases you may find they're tumbling like a tossed stone at 100 yards. Unless you're using a proper hunting revolver, don't expect to do any sigificant man-stopping damage to a person at that range.

--Defense of another at more than 50 yards. Even with the most steady hand, the risk of hitting the innocent party is enormous.

--If the foe is engaging you or presenting imminent deady peril to you at that range, chances are he's doing it with a long gun. You will lose that fight, period. Handguns, esp. a 1911 or similar medium-power semi, has virtually no chance of winning against even a carbine at that range. That's your extreme range, but his point blank. I personally don't like those odds one bit. Your only hope is to hit the ground and scurry for whatever cover you can find. Trying to take steady aim with a 1911 sighted in at 100 yards is going to make you a very nice target indeed. And it's sure to draw the foe's attention to you.

--If the foe is engaging you with a short gun at more than fifty yards, your best chance is to run like hell and zig zag into cover. I suppose in a 100 yard duel with both parties standing still, you'd have better odds of winning if you had your pistol sighted in at 100 yards. But realistically such duels almost never happen. And again you can avoid them by running.

 

[shooter1]

From what I have read on this thread, I would conclude that the majority have not done any long range pistol shooting. I even recall one post suggesting that a 45 ACP slug wouldn't do much damage at 100yds in the unlikely event you could score a hit. Wellllll, for those of you that haven't tried it, It's not that hard!!! Most everyone can learn to ring a 16" steel plate at 100yds with a .45 ACP in one range session. The last pistol match I attended required the shooters to hit a 16", 1/2 scale sillouette from 25/50/75/100 yds and required you to run between shooting stations. Almost everyone did it successfully. For those who suggest that a 1/2oz, (well almost---230grs) projectile traveling in excess of 400 mph (600fps) is not deadly, might want to rethink their position. Any pistol would not be my first choice for long range shooting, but if it is my only choice I have confidence in my abitlty to make the shot. Every serious shooter needs to know a little about the trajectory of their chosen weapon. Just knowing you can make the long shots gives you tremendous confidence in making the shorter ones. Besides it's fun!!
str1

 

[Gunpacker]

100 yd zero

Sounds like you have thought about it and know what you want to do, and are not really interested in changing. Set it how you want to shoot, and the rest of us will use our own setup that we think is best for whatever reason. Main thing is to know your gun, and how much to hold under at 25, 50 and 75 yds if you want to hit a small target. Practice will do that whatever the setting I guess, and we all decide what is best for us. Bullet trajectory charts are ok, but experience is the only way to go when you are relying on sights not set for the distance you are shooting.

 

[Ankeny]

I have done a lot of long range pistol shooting in the form of steel critters, live critters and paper critters. I also shot PPC for many years so God only knows how many thousands of rounds I have torched off at 50 yards.

I do know my firearms, and yes I can shoot a decent group. Still, all of my carry guns (and IDPA/IPSC guns) are sighted in dead on at 12-15 yards. I find it much more useful to be able to do a failure drill (Mozambique), 2 to the body and one to the head, at ten yards in under two seconds wihtout guessing where the bullet will hit than to be able to plink a steel gong at 100 yards.

 

[grnzbra]

You're right. One would not want to rely on trajectory charts. The shape of the trajectory for a given bullet exiting the barrel at a given velocity will be dependant on the height of the sights above the axis of the bore which is probably different than used for the tables. It's just that I had always thought that there was more of an arch in the path of the bullet and something like this wouldn't be possible.

Actually, at the moment, I can't try it with my 1911; it has no front sight. I'm trying to decide what I'm going to replace it with; came off because the gunsmith glued it in place. I will be trying it with a 38spl to get an idea if it is a viable option. If it works with the 38, I'll get the 45 set up that way.

 

[nitesite]

I added a link earlier to one article. Here's another that describes in detail the James Cantwell incident, and one officer who repeatedly fired his 1911 from 100 yards at a barricaded rifleman.

"Claude Deckard, probably the best shot on the scene, is firing at Cantwell from 100 yards with his personal, customized Colt .45 auto. A full time corrections officer and part-time Steelville cop, Deckard uses this gun in competition out to 50 yards. Now, at double the distance, he is holding high -- too high. When it's over, a tight cluster of .45 holes will be found in the wall of the mobile home, inches above Cantwell's position."

"Deckard's five shots with his custom Government Model .45 came within inches of stopping Cantwell. He had exhibited enviable marksmanship and coolness under superior fire at 100 yards, and subsequently was awarded the Distinguished Law Enforcement Award by the Illinois Police Association. He just didn't have the hold-over right. No one can blame him. Even then, few police were taught to fire their duty weapons beyond 25 yards and virtually none beyond 50."


This entire narrative is worth reading, as it tells of the singular incident that prompted Illinois to develop S.W.A.T. training.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_159_26/ai_90099697/print

 

[Cosmoline]

For those who suggest that a 1/2oz, (well almost---230grs) projectile traveling in excess of 400 mph (600fps) might want to rethink their position.

That's 183 ft. lbs. with a very fat slug unlikely to penetrate far. Comparable to a .38/200 S&W. My position remains, well, meh

Officer Deckard should have gotten a slap upside the head and instructions to use a rifle next time. Frankly that whole tragic scene illustrates why LEO's rely far, far too much on their sidearms. In this case they should have headed for solid cover as soon as the suspect engaged with the rifle. Deckard got winged in the arm AND the fellow behind him got solidly plugged while he was trying impotently to prove his marksmanship at that range. FOOLISH! You do not take on a bolt gun with a handgun at that range. The officers should have remained under cover and secured rifles from their cruisers, then engaged with overwhelming firepower.

"Frustrated his five shots haven't connected, Deckard takes a scoped 20 gauge shotgun, loaded with slugs, from Chief Gladson, puts the crosshairs on Cantwell, and tries to press the trigger. Nothing happens. Looking down to check the safety, he sees he has been shot in the arm, and he hears a moan behind him.

Cantwell has put a bullet through Deckard's strong-side forearm that exits his upper arm and hammers into the chest of Bill Graves, a local police auxiliary who has responded to the scene unarmed after hearing emergency radio traffic on his scanner. Graves collapses in place and Deckard, unable to shoot, sets down the scoped shotgun.

A horrible tale. Just make sure you learn the right lessons from it. (hint--the lesson is NOT to sight in your .45 at 100 yards )

Ayoob has it:

"Incidents like this reinforce the logic of issuing rifles to rank and file patrol officers as standard equipment, accompanied by proper training. Jim Spier is convinced if patrol rifles had been arrayed at the 100 yard containment ring by at least some of the 16 to 18 responding officers then present, Cantwell would very likely have been neutralized with few or no law enforcement casualties once he began shooting."

 

[Gunpacker]

Lack of knowledge here by some

I am amazed by the posts here that instead of trying to improve knowledge, are stating totally incorrect "information".
One posts that at 100 yds bullet might be tumbling, or slowed down and useless or some such nonsense.
For instance, a 200 grain .45 with mv of 1023 fps will only slow to 888 fps at 100 yds. Believe me, that will ruin your whole day. Also, a reasonable 45 will shoot a 2 in group at 50 yds, and will shoot a 4 in group at 100. If you don't believe it - OK but you are misinformed.
A handgun is not the best weapon, but a well trained, (not your average cop) handgunner, is deadly at 100 yds.
I have shot as far as 600 yds after reading some articles on same by Elmer Keith, and when you get the trajectory right, a pistol (.357 mag. in this case) a person would be in mortal danger of being hit on every shot. Some would miss, but probably one in a cylinder full would hit a man size target. Keith kept his shots on a wooden door. I didn't have a door, but was shooting at a small bush on a hill, with bullets not missing by more than a couple of feet.
I have shot at metallic silhouette targets (rifle size) at 200 meters with a 4 in Smith 686 and was able to hit about 1 of 3 from a PPC sitting position.
The real shooters here know that I am telling it true, and those that feel that this is bs, should stop and examine if they are saying that from knowledge or ignorance. Not every shooter can do this, but you PPC shooters will grin and nod, especially the high masters.
The fact that the trained shooter in the shooting incident put a small group above the bad guy illustrates that the .45 was capable. I just can't figure out why he kept shooting high. If you miss high, you just move down.

 

[shooter1]

I don't know anyone who sights in their carry or action competition guns at 100 yds. Mine are sighted in at 25yds. I just do a little long range shooting at the end of my range sessions for fun.
str1

 

[Cosmoline]

A handgun is not the best weapon, but a well trained, (not your average cop) handgunner, is deadly at 100 yds.

And I would counter that a lot of handgunners simply do not understand rifles. A well trained handgunner against a rifle-wielding foe isn't deadly at 100 yards. He's DEAD. It's not even reasonable to contemplate such a shootout. All you'll be doing is making you and anyone unlucky enough to be behind you a target.

I'm not arguing here that you can't hit targets or doors at 100 yards or more with a handgun. I've seen it done. I've seen a marksman popping baloons at 300 yards with a 9x19! Amazing stuff, and lots of fun to try. But that does not mean you should even entertain the notion of engaging an armed foe at that range unless there is absolutely no other option. And if you think there's no other option I'd suggesting thinking harder. If you really insist on having a handgun able to function at those ranges get a scoped long-barreled .44 Magnum or .454 Casull.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

to put it in perspective, even a first time rifle shooter can hit a man sized target nearly 100%.



It takes quite a bit of skill to hit a target at 50 with a pistol.

 

[nitesite]

I posted some articles earlier for you digest, with the second specifically mentioning a police shootout involving some 100-yard shots by officers with handguns. These were for you to make your own analysis. Those officers, in a rural environment, did not have rifles at their disposal.

But I surmise that you are asking your original question from a civilian's perspective.

Here's my opinion:

In all liklihood, civilians should not expect to encounter such a situation nor should they set their sights for such.

Those who do imagine that possibility are living in a Walter Mitty type of world.

But if that's the way you want to prepare and train, so be it.

 

[444]

Hitting an IPSC or IDPA silhouette target at 100 yards with a service type handgun zeroed at 25 yards is easy. Hitting an actual person that is using cover and shooting at you is another matter entirely. But, if all I had was a handgun (likely) and the situation was such that I had no other options, I am going to defend myself.
Doing it from a rest (such as shooting over a car), it wouldn't be all that hard to keep all your shots COM.
Counting on making a head shot during a gun fight at any range is foolish.

 

[nitesite]

Amen, 444. AMEN.

Talk to any veteran of a shooting or shootout (the two are completely different).

There is simply not much sense in training to hit at 100 years when I think it's more practical to practice a Mozambique move at 3-10 meters.

 

[Gunpacker]

Didn't say pistol equal to rifle

Cosmoline, I didn't say anything about a handgun being superior to a rifle. First of all, a handgun bullet will kill just as surely as a rifle bullet generally. Dead is dead. Also would depend on type of rifle, type of pistol, rate of aimed fire. Surprisingly, according to military records, very few soldiers hit their target 100% of the time so your premise that if a rifle shooter gets off one shot the handgunner is done for is dead wrong. Most rifle shooters will miss in combat almost 100% of the time. A highly trained rifle shooter is a different matter. Skill levels equal, a rifle is certainly better assuming the rate of fire is not a problem. Still, given a choice I would take the rifle every time, and feel I had an advantage but not a sure thing. Course, the rifle's more powerful round can give another advantage by being able to penetrate some types of cover. (Actually, I do understand rifles, and think that many do not understand the full capability of a handgun.) I shoot both rifle and handgun extensively and just feel that I am not necessarily dead meat in a long range confrontation having only a handgun. However a guy that does think he could not defend himself with a handgun would certainly have only one option. That would be to run away, hoping to stay under cover until out of range. That is not necessarily a pleasant thought assuming a talented rifleman with the ability to shoot at you till out of sight at his leisure with no return fire. I would rather shoot back personally, because aimed competent return fire makes one less likely to be hit by distracting enemy and giving him less time to aim. Especially close in aimed fire. Might even hit him. I think I might at least.

 

[Majic]

to put it in perspective, even a first time rifle shooter can hit a man sized target nearly 100%.

If you have the target at 25 yards. Move the target back to 100 yards and a lot of them have trouble staying on the paper unless the rifle is scoped.
Once they learn the basics of rifle shooting then it becomes much easier for them.

 

[grendelbane]

When I was a young man, I bought a Colt Gold Culp. I was proud of my acquisition, and practiced with it quite a bit.

The older generation, wiser and more experienced than me, (both of them WWII vets), told me it was useless, it had no range.

I proudly proceeded to show them one day what it could do. I put a full 7 round magazine into about a 12" group, at a measured 100 yards. No one mentioned that a .45 would not generate a serious wound at 100 yards. My uncle said it was a trick. A good trick, but a trick nonetheless, as he knew that a .45 would not shoot that well at that range.

My father was a little more charitable. He said that he had seen trick shooters perform during the war. It was not the pistol, it was the shooter. The .45 was still incapable of hitting a man sized target at 100 yards. A few talented shooters could do it however.

Who am I to argue with them?

Still, look at the charts. That 230 grain slug starts out sub-sonic, and does not lose much velocity over 100 yards. I don't want to get hit with one, and I suspect that there are Gov't model barrels that hit harder @ 100 yards than some of the short barrel models do @ 25 yards.

 

[Cosmoline]

A few points:

First of all, a handgun bullet will NOT kill just as surely as a rifle's. A full power rifle, esp. loaded with hunting bullets, will kill far faster as it rips large chunks of you out your other end. This is particularly true with regard to slow, fat .45 ACP rounds with minimal energy and expansive power. Most of the time they don't even penetrate. There's a reason nobody hunts medium or big game with a .45 ACP or 9x19. Your 1911 will deliver perhaps 400 ft. lbs even at the muzzle and has terrible sectional density. A full powered rifle will deliver blow in excess of 2,000 ft. lbs. even at 100 yards and if it has a SP or HP bullet it will open up and rip through the target like a supersonic cuisinart. Massive tissue destruction results as well as massive blood loss. Blood pours out of both the entry and exit wound and blood pressure drops to nothing very quickly. Simply put--it kills much better. Can a .45 kill at 100 yards? Oh yeah. But given the aiming difficulties and the sharp drop in power of the already underpowered round, it's very far from a sure thing.

Secondly, if you are thinking you would have a chance against any rifleman at 100 yards with a 1911, I think you need to think harder about this. To quote the mall ninja thread--if that's your plan "A", you need a plan "B." I can train a 15 year old kid to hit a stationary human-size target with a rifle at 100 yards in an afternoon. It's easy. That's within the point blank range of a full powered rifle--scoped or with iron sights. I'm not sure where you're getting this statitstic of all soldiers missing with their rifles. But for contrary evidence, please see WWI and WWII.

You most certainly SHOULD run in that circumstance. Run for cover ASAP and don't draw attention to yourself by capping off rounds from your sidearm. The cop in the real life scenario discussed by Mas made that mistake, and sure enough he got nailed and the bullet went on to hit another officer. My tactical response is simple: I see a rifle aiming at me, I duck down and run. I get to concealment and cover as fast as I can. I only consider shooting back if I've also got a rifle and a good shot at his back. I've seen what a "mere hunting rifle" can do to a 1,500 lb. moose. I don't want to roll those dice, thankee

 

[444]

.

 

[M2 Carbine]

In 1968 at the Army Helicopter Flight school I had the most decorated man on post for a student.

I read his Silver Star Commendation.
He was the door gunner on an LOH when it was shot down and crashed in the middle of a rice paddy, behind a dike.
The pilot was injured and pinned in the helicopter.
The Sergeant's M60 was jammed in the wreckage.
(so much for saying I'll just get a rifle)
When the Sergeant looked over the dike a VC was 7 yards away. The Sergeant killed him with his 45.
The Sergeant then killed VC out to a measured 97 yards.
(I don't remember the number but when I read it, it was like HOLY CRAP)

No one knows why they didn't all charge him at once but they came at him 1 or 2 at a time.
(they knew he had an M60 and maybe thought he was trying to suck them out in the open)

I don't know what the Zero was on his 45 but he made do.

 

[EricO]

I think C_Yeager jumped on it first, and then your response was -

<<What if you have to make the MUCH MORE LIKELY head shot at 7 yards? You dont really want to have to deal with guesswork at that range.>>

Your response, "Aim for the tip of the chin at any distance. At 7 yards you might be about 2 inches high (that's a guess since on the way out to 25 yards it is rising to 4.+ inches)."
------------------------------------------------

That's not always practical. You're assuming that your target will be vertically oriented. On a "square" training range perhaps, but not in the real world. You'll be taking shots on the COM of whatever is exposed of your adversary. He may be leaning out at an angle, where now you'll have to remember, under the incredible adrenalin surge you'll likely be experiencing, that you need to adjust on a diagonal, not on a vertical line. Just like many people forget about the AR familys 2.5" offset of sights to bore and place rounds into barricades their trying to shoot over or around, the same could happen here. Nope, I with sighting in your handguns at a 25 yard zero. If you can ensure that you'll only be taking 100 yd shots with your handgun (which in that case you should have a rifle) then go ahead and zero it for that. But if you'll be using your handgun to control the immediate area surrounding yourself as it was designed to do, then it shoud be zeroed closer.

EricO

 

[Gunpacker]

Cosmoline-what are you talking about

Contrary evidence of WW1 and WW2????
In WW1, approximately 7,000 rounds of rifle ammo was fired for each enemy casualty. Look it up.
In WW2, number went up to appx 40,000/casualty.
In Korea, higher still but I can't remember the appx. number.
In Viet Nam, over 250,000 rounds were fired per casualty.
Lot of those 15 year old kids you can train so well would certainly have been useful.
There were exceptions obviously, where trained rifleman was able to bring down the average number, but obviously the effective rifleman was a TINY minority. Average rifleman in combat doesn't hit crap.
You can spout all you want about the rifle killing better with a hit and obviously it will. Still requires a hit, and return fire changes the dynamics of a gun battle. Any 15 year old can hit a man target at 100 yds. Sure, and I can hit a golf ball. What's the point. I can also hit a gallon bottle 100% of the time with a handgun. Tremendous gouts of blood and gore from rifle hunting ammo will put you out-yes- but so will a .45 cal slug that only goes deep enough to penetrate the lungs or heart or head, or break an arm or leg. Rifle ammo has tremendous energy, although most of that energy is not imparted to the target.
Average rifleman who can't miss in combat only lives in your mind.

 

[BJPARKER]

Great research! And with that in mind, you now can organize a 1911 100 yard pumpkin shoot, which, who knows may become an annual thing!

 

[Gunpacker]

Pumpkin shoot

BJParker, Pumpkin shoot would be fun and well within the capabilities of the .45. You simply have to have it sighted in. Showing my age, but in early eighties, I shot in what I believe was the very first Florida State Championship of handgun metallic silhouette. Went with a PPC shooting friend that was also a nationally ranked bulleseye shooter with a 45. The match was shot with everything imaginable, as silhouette had not evolved to scope sighted single shots yet. I shot a revolver, and my friend shot his 45. I was extremely dubious of the 45, since it was obvious to me that a 45 auto could not shoot well at that range. (100 yds). Well, in the morning shoot, he stunned me by shooting not only his 45 but shooting it one handed as well. On the chicken segment at 25 yds, he proceeded to hit 26 straight. (kept shooting after the scheduled 10 to attempt a record at the time, but only 10 counted in the match). I don't recall the exact match scores, (we're talking 20+ years ago), but I do recall that he was leading after morning shoot. He had a "few" at lunchtime and managed to blow the match, and I think he finished second. One thing I do recall clearly is spotting for him on 100 yd rams thru a scope. He wasn't sighted in and missed first 4 high or low, as I called out miss positions for him. He then proceeded to hit the next 6 in a row. 45's going downrange are almost comical in a scope, as you can see them. Kinda looks like someone throwing at the target with the arc of the bullet. But you can still hit them, and I suspect your pumpkins would be duck soup.

 

[Gunpacker]

Rifle effectiveness

http://www.softwhale.com/civilwar/cwar-rifle.htm
I was looking for the numbers I quoted on shots per casualty, and haven't found them yet. Still looking. Did find this article on Civil War rifle fire effectiveness.
Appears that Civil War soldiers fired somewhere between 100-200 shots per casualty inflicted. I think this is illustrative, when you consider that many of the shots were fired from behind cover at charging troops in the open that were probably very close. Hard to hit someone when your a**hole is puckered. Guys with muzzle loaders probably tended to aim better than those with bolt actions or semis. Makes you wonder if we wouldn't have been more effective in later wars with muzzle loaders.