Long range pistol shooting

[Bob Mayne]

I was going to resurrect this thread but because it's locked I can't. So the link is below.



In a recent shooting where a gun owner saved a cop's life, by taking a shot at approximately 165 yards with a handgun!  http://www.guns.com/texas-gun-owner-shoot-out-10236.html

If you read through this thread, you'll notice some naysayers stating it's not important to develop this type of skill.  Had it not been for some pretty good shooting by a civilian gun owner, this cop might be dead. 

So I thought it would be prudent to take up this subject again.  Given the recent active shooter situations in Colorado and Wisconsin, don't you think long range shooting is a good thing to learn?  If nothing else, it will make you that much better at close range distances. 


http://gunrightsradio.com/forums2/index.php/topic,7518.0.html

[tlcwrites]

My 2 cents : Even if it's true that 98% of gunfights happen inside of 10 yards (or whatever), that fact is likely to be of no comfort if you're in that 2% that defy the rule. And SOMEBODY is in that group. Certainly it's logical to focus the bulk of our training on the situations most likely to occur in the real world. But if we carry guns to be prepared, why would we say "I only want to be prepared 98% of the time"?

We wouldn't carry ammo where one bullet out of every 50 failed to fire. A gun that misfired 2% of the time would end up in the safe or the scrap heap. Can you imagine a knife whose blade would fall off one out of 50 times we use it?

Why should we be willing to accept less of ourselves than we expect of our equipment? After all, WE are the beat equipment we possess. Our senses, our reflexes, our muscles, our brains - even the best engineering of today cannot replicate it. So why should we let our skills and training be less than it could be? It's not like the "take a shot at 150 yards" skill displaces another more useful one from our brains.

One more thing: even the most generous estimates give any of us only about a 1% chance of being involved in a defensive gun use situation in any given year. If we're going to argue that we should carry guns - and don't get me wrong, I absolutely think we should - isn't it a bit silly to argue that we shouldn't train at long distances because "that'll never happen"? How many of us have heard an anti-gunner say that using our guns for self-defense "will never happen"? I know I have.

Tammy

[markthenewf]

Yeah, that's pretty impressive.  For giggles I sometimes shoot the 100 meter (~109 yd) ram silhouette at the pistol range.  I usually get 1 or 2 of my rounds (7-round 1911 45ACP) to make a ding, so I've got an appreciation for this guy picking off something at 50% father!  I've recently started trying to shoot with my 'weak' hand, and it's coming along ok thanks to a 22LR conversion kit, but perhaps I need to start on doing some 50+ yard shooting.  Right now I usually cap it at 15 yd.

[Bob Mayne]

My 2 cents : Even if it's true that 98% of gunfights happen inside of 10 yards (or whatever), that fact is likely to be of no comfort if you're in that 2% that defy the rule. And SOMEBODY is in that group. Certainly it's logical to focus the bulk of our training on the situations most likely to occur in the real world. But if we carry guns to be prepared, why would we say "I only want to be prepared 98% of the time"?

We wouldn't carry ammo where one bullet out of every 50 failed to fire. A gun that misfired 2% of the time would end up in the safe or the scrap heap. Can you imagine a knife whose blade would fall off one out of 50 times we use it?

Why should we be willing to accept less of ourselves than we expect of our equipment? After all, WE are the beat equipment we possess. Our senses, our reflexes, our muscles, our brains - even the best engineering of today cannot replicate it. So why should we let our skills and training be less than it could be? It's not like the "take a shot at 150 yards" skill displaces another more useful one from our brains.

One more thing: even the most generous estimates give any of us only about a 1% chance of being involved in a defensive gun use situation in any given year. If we're going to argue that we should carry guns - and don't get me wrong, I absolutely think we should - isn't it a bit silly to argue that we shouldn't train at long distances because "that'll never happen"? How many of us have heard an anti-gunner say that using our guns for self-defense "will never happen"? I know I have.

Tammy

Tammy, that's extremely well said.  I hope you don't mind if I borrow this from you?  On a podcast.  I will give full credit where it's due.

[markthenewf]

.... oh yeah, I forgot to also make another point here:  223 wasn't much good against a covering tree.  I know the AR15 platform is handy, but in this case it just wasn't enough gun.  Time to bring in the 30 cals!

Does it say anywhere what the Mr. Stacy was using to make that shot?

[SirBrass]

He mentioned hoping that the magnum bullet would reach, so I'd estimate that it was a good old 357 magnum revolver.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3

[tlcwrites]

Bob, feel free to borrow my comment - that's why I made it, so hopefully others might find it useful food for discussion. Since I know you like to give locations with reader emails and stuff you read on-air, I'm in California.

[CR Williams]

Practicing the long shot, among other things, also trains in the same disciplines required to make a precision shot. I am of the opinion that the better you can shoot long, the better you can shoot precisely. The faster you can get from holster to a precision shot, the faster you can get from holster to a long shot. And vice versa.

If you take a day or two and consciously look for areas and environments you're in that might require an engagement farther than, say, 30 feet away, I think you might see enough to surprise you.

Consider that the actual distance from the IHOP shooter to the man at the BBQ restaurant was actually closer to 35 yards than to 60-100 as was originally stated. Consider the distance from the far corner of the theater in Colorado to where the shooter was standing after entering the emergency door. Both of those, and other distances, are quite in excess of the 7 yards, perhaps 10 yards, you hear bandied about more often than not.

Begins to make you think a bit sometimes.

[Bob Mayne]

Practicing the long shot, among other things, also trains in the same disciplines required to make a precision shot. I am of the opinion that the better you can shoot long, the better you can shoot precisely. The faster you can get from holster to a precision shot, the faster you can get from holster to a long shot. And vice versa.

If you take a day or two and consciously look for areas and environments you're in that might require an engagement farther than, say, 30 feet away, I think you might see enough to surprise you.

Consider that the actual distance from the IHOP shooter to the man at the BBQ restaurant was actually closer to 35 yards than to 60-100 as was originally stated. Consider the distance from the far corner of the theater in Colorado to where the shooter was standing after entering the emergency door. Both of those, and other distances, are quite in excess of the 7 yards, perhaps 10 yards, you hear bandied about more often than not.

Begins to make you think a bit sometimes.

Exactly correct.  Hence, the need to practice long range shooting.

[ExpatBen]

And long range shooting is just fun.  If you get a steel target and just keep pushing it back you'll find out how good you really are at the fundamentals.  I love to put these tests in my class and was one of the funnest things I've done at classes I've gone to.

[tlcwrites]

Wanted to add a thought I had about this topic yesterday. I was doing a ride-along with my local sheriff's department (an experience I HIGHLY recommend, by the way, if your local police agencies offer the opportunity) and noticed the officer touch the trunk of a vehicle we stopped as he approached it. He explained later that he did this because (a) it would leave his fingerprints on the car in case something happened, and (b) it gave him advance warning if someone was hiding in the trunk and about to jump out and ambush him.

"It isn't that either of those situations is especially likely to happen," he told me, "but I made myself and my wife and kids a promise that if I die out here doing this job, it's going to be because of something unforeseen and random, not because of something I could have prevented if I'd been smarter. So I do everything I can to stack the deck in my favor." Body armor, he added, was another example of this. Police body armor isn't perfect protection - it leaves head, neck, and limbs exposed. It won't stop a knife, or a rifle bullet. But wearing body armor gives the cop enough of an edge, enough of the time, to outweigh the added inconvenience of wearing it.

Isn't long-range shooting the same thing? Sure, it's not a skill you might need very often. If all goes well, your situational awareness and avoidance of the "three stupids" (doing stupid things in stupid places with stupid people) will make it so you never have to bet your life on that 150-yard shot with your Glock. But considering that it costs little to acquire the skill, and it gives you just that much more of an edge, why wouldn't you want to do it?

Tammy

[Bob Mayne]

Isn't long-range shooting the same thing? Sure, it's not a skill you might need very often. If all goes well, your situational awareness and avoidance of the "three stupids" (doing stupid things in stupid places with stupid people) will make it so you never have to bet your life on that 150-yard shot with your Glock. But considering that it costs little to acquire the skill, and it gives you just that much more of an edge, why wouldn't you want to do it?

Tammy

Well said. 

[Sicktone]

This thread (and recent events) made me listen (for the 3rd time) to the ProArms Podcast episode 33 "The Fairchild Incident".

TSgt Andy Brown fired on a killer that was wielding a MAK-90 at the distance of about 70 yards, using an M9 with ball ammo. 

One of his four shots was a headshot.

He got the job done...a true hero.

Here is his site that describes the incident:

http://fairchildhospitalshooting.com

[Damian]

To me this subject is simple.  If you practice shooting at long range, your short range game will benefit from it.  No one can predict what situation you may find yourself in, so why not be prepared as much as possible.

I also think it's fun to try increase your marksmanship at long range.  I sure had a blast shooting at a 75 yard target at "Close Range Gun Fighting" and I did not do as good as I hoped.  So now I am taking the time to practice it at the range among other things.

[SirBrass]

Update on the range issue.  It turns out it was more like 165 ft, not yards.  An understandable misspoken word by the gentleman, and still does nothing to discount his fine accuracy.  55 yards is still an impressive shot from a handgun... any handgun.

[Bob Mayne]

Yeah, and a .357 magnum revolver too!  Wait a minute, aren't double action triggers suppose to be hard to shoot accurately?  Aren't revolvers out dated technology?  I thought triggers on revolvers and striker fired guns, were hard to shoot?  Don't you have to have a finely tuned single action only trigger to be able to shoot accurately?  Especially at 55 yards?   

[SirBrass]

I figure he fired in single action.  A well-used revolver or one with a nice trigger job (aka, 1000rnd trigger job v/s being sent a gunsmith who knows what he's doing with revolvers) is going to have a NICE SA break, which is probably what one wants to do when taking a precision shot, whether long range or just short range precision.

[Bob Mayne]

The reports didn't say whether it was SA or a DAO or DA/SA revolver.  I've seen people make very good hits with DAO revolvers are farther distances than 55 yards too.

[SirBrass]

I'm just speculating.  If I had to, I'd want to make the best shot I could without a long trigger pull to disrupt my front sight.  Means if I could, I'd put the revolver into SA.  All he has to do with a DA Revolver is cock the hammer.