Don't be surprised if when you argue for your limitations, that they are granted.
I wouldn't argue for my limitations, however, I am a realist. Although shooting at another human being in self defense, and hitting a stationary target utilize some of the same basic marksmanship skills (sight picture, trigger control, etc) they are completely different beasts, yet people keep lumping them together. They think if they can do it slowfire, on a square range with no pressure, that they can do it rapid fire, being shot at by your target, while you're moving and trying to find cover, and your target it likely either moving, or setup in a way to make it VERY difficult for them to be hit.
Why is it that supposedly well trained police officer can only hit their targets 34% of the time?
Although ranges to target aren't discussed in that article, I believe it would be safe to assume most of those gun fights were at relatively short ranges (certainly not out to 125 yards). And I would bet that a majority of them are at 10 yards or less. Now, we could discuss the quality of training the police get, or whatever, but I'm willing to bet most of those officers involved in shootings could hit 100% at anything out to 25 yards on a human sized target. But adding in a single factor...being shot at and your life being in jeopardy drops that down by 66%.
Push it out to over 100 yards, which even some of the more skilled marksman have trouble hitting 100% of the time with a combat handgun with iron sights, and you can see why I have trouble believing that anyone could get a decent hit rate at that distance, while being shot at. Of course, if I were being shot at by someone with a rifle at over 100 yards and all I have is my Glock, you better believe I'm going to fight back. I can hit a 10in gong at 100 yards. I know how to do it with my gun. But the realist in me says I'm going to have a tough time getting anything to hit.
Now, most of us have probably seen Bob Munden's seemingly impossible shots, such as:
The 200 yard, with a snubbie - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Tied-t1fFsk
or the 600 yard shot with a .44 Magnum (can't seem to find a video)
These are great shots, but do you think he would have been able to do them if the balloon was shooting back?
Hitting a human sized target with a handgun at over 100 yards is most certainly possible. I would bet most people on this forum who have been shooting for a while have been done it. That same feat, while being shot at by someone with a rifle? Possible? Ok sure...but highly improbable. That's all I'm trying to say here.
I'm not arguing for limitations. That would be like saying you can use a flathead screwdriver as a chisel. Will it work? It sure will, but the results aren't going to be as good as if you used the proper tool for the job. You could say I'm arguing for the limitations of the screwdriver, but I'm just being realistic. The screwdriver is designed to drive screws. A handgun is a compromise. It gives you a decent amount of firepower in a small package that's easy to carry around and hide. If it were easy to carry a rifle, we'd all carry that. We must understand the limitations of the tools we use, before we can use them well.
A handgun vs. a rifle at 125 yards is no contest, especially when the person with the rifle gets the drop on you. Could you get lucky? Is it possible to win with the handgun? Yeah, I suppose, but it's improbable.
Ok, I've beat my point into the ground. No sense trying anymore. Bowing out of the thread...