125 yard pistol accuracy?

[AZAK]

A man sized target at 125 yards 25 out of thirty is doable with a handgun; slow aimed fire.

Now, doing this after being "wounded" with the possibility of return fire is a bit of a game changer. And one would assume that a sniper would not be standing upright there just taunting a pair of 1911 wielding opponents, even at 125 yards.

About every time that I go out shooting, I set up tin cans and clays out to 125 yards specifically for handgun shooting. My 10" gong at 100 yards is not much of a challenge. And for those that "poo-poo" longer distance handgun shooting and say that it is just so much internet bravado, watch Hickok45 on youtube/1911 at 230 yards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2cnop15VA8
And realize that there are many other folks who also practice longer range shooting with handguns.
And really does anyone expect reality in an adventure novel?

[BuckRub]

thank you AZAK. Exactly!! And to those who say its 30 yards its too far for me or whatever. All I can say is you must not shoot often are either practice at 5 yards . LOL

[Gaerek]

Now, doing this after being "wounded" with the possibility of return fire is a bit of a game changer. And one would assume that a sniper would not be standing upright there just taunting a pair of 1911 wielding opponents, even at 125 yards.

And that's the key. It's not about slow fire, bullseye shooting from 100 yards. Anyone can do that adequately. You add in adrenaline, and many other potential factors, and your ability to hit anything past 50 yards diminishes GREATLY.

thank you AZAK. Exactly!! And to those who say its 30 yards its too far for me or whatever. All I can say is you must not shoot often are either practice at 5 yards . LOL

Ahh, so you're that guy who goes to the range, sets his target out to 50 (or 100, or whatever) yards. Takes careful slow aim. If using a revolver, or DA/SA semi, cocks the hammer, then carefully squeezes the trigger. Hits the target, of course, but then gives crap to the people that can get 5 rapid fire shots within 6 inches at 25 yards, because you got 5 shots within 6 inches at 100 yards, and it only took you a minute and a half to get the shots off! Sound unreasonable? I've seen it.

Shooting a static target, with no pressure/stress/adrenaline at any distance on a standard range is one thing. Doing it under pressure with all of those factors included is an entirely different thing. Why do you think miss percentages are so low at short (less than 10 yards) ranges? It has nothing to do with training, and everything to do with adrenaline and stress.

Try an IPSC or IDPA match sometime. When you're under the clock, there's a lot of stress. That 25 yarder they put in there seems incredibly far. I practice and train to be able to hit my target at closer ranges, because chances are very slim I'll have to take a shot greater than 10 yards. I'll practice out to 20 or 30 yards sometimes, and I'll go out to 50 rarely, but 5-10 yards is where I work most of the time. Why? Because statistically, if I am in a shooting situation, I won't have to hit a gong at 100 yards...instead, I'll have to hit an attacker at under 10 yards.

[AZAK]

Anyone can do that adequately.

Part of the point is that most can not.
Why not? Because they do not practice at longer distances; and they may not have the skill set, and/or may not be physically able (eyesight, muscle control, etc...).

I practice and train to be able to hit my target at closer ranges, because chances are very slim I'll have to take a shot greater than 10 yards.

Different focus/shooting discipline. Sure there are some overlapping skills; however, again different emphasis.

Until one is "in that situation where the chips are down" one really doesn't know how one will perform/react. Punching paper and hitting steel, timed or not, near or far, fast or slow can help simulate situations. But, until it really counts you just don't know. Again, training/practice/skills all can help; I am a strong advocate of all of these.

An excellent example is "buck fever". Perfectly capable marksman at the range, fumbles and can't hit the broad side of a barn at the sight of a legal animal. Or the many accounts of people forgetting the safety on their firearm when being robbed, and continuing to pull the trigger again and again...

And on the other side of the coin, the first time hunter who drops his animal with the first shot, or the person who remembers to flick off the safety.

Both examples may have the same/similar training and perform equally at the range; however, there are many names for it but until you are there... one just doesn't know.

Because statistically, if I am in a shooting situation, I won't have to hit a gong at 100 yards...instead, I'll have to hit an attacker at under 10 yards.

Being a hunter there have been many times that I have utilized the skills involved in being able to easily hit a 100 yard gong, yet I have never had to "hit an attacker at under 10".

YMMV (And that is the beauty of it.)

[44 AMP]

model 1911s and fire back, two magazines each. Of aproximately 30 rounds, the sniper is hit 25 times.

NO. Not gonna happen.

Slow fire long range accuracy is possible, although the 1911 is far from the best choice.

Shooting back against a sniper with their handguns? Unless your characters have practiced shooting those guns at that distance, ain't gonna be no 25 hits. 2 or 3 perhaps, random hits would be much closer to believable and zero hits (with a few near misses) would be much closer to reality.

I can hit (repeatedly, once I'm on) the 200 yard gong at my local range with any handgun you give me, usually before the gun is empty. Off hand. Assuming there's no wind, and a spotter (really needed for the small calibers), its just a matter of learning how much front sight to hold up, to compensate for the drop.

With a .45 auto, you need to hold up enough so a point between a third to half way to the ejection port is level with the top of your rear sight. Put your target on top of the front sight and spot the fall of shot, correcting as needed.

And, remember that you have no reference point on the slide, so each shot will be a best guess using the force. Once you learn how much to hold up, you can get pretty close, shot after shot. Marking the slide makes it even easier.

BUT, do that rapidly enough to be suppressive fire against a sniper, and accurately enough to get hits (and 25 out of 30 is a pipe dream)? Maybe, if your shooters had spent hundreds of hours of long range practice, including rapid fire.

I couldn't do it, and I've spent the best part of 20 years shooting thousands of rounds out of different handguns across a 200 yd canyon at targets 10" or so, sometimes less.

I don't know if even Mack Bolan could make 25 hits out of 30...

I could get close enough that the sniper would know he was being shot at...and I might even get a hit on him, maybe even two, sometimes even a blind monkey finds a banana! (and that's assuming the sniper, with a rifle, who has already hit me once-grazed) doesn't get another shot and a solid hit while the wife and I are in spray and pray mode

Now, at 125yds, given a head & shoulders size target, my old 7.5" Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt, with the load I have been shooting since 1983, some cover, and that sniper will have something to really worry about....

[armoredman]

I don't know if even Mack Bolan could make 25 hits out of 30...

With Big Thunder, he can hit anything...or use the rocket launchers in the RV...

[Winchester_73]

The topic of this thread proves once again, that most often, authors for novels and screenwriters or even directors for movies lack a knowledge of firearms. For me, its more an expectation rather than a disappointment. Also, many times when a movie has a gun or gun scene which more historically accurate or realistic, the movie may not be as good otherwise. Sometimes, depending upon the movie, book, play, etc you have to just get over the fact that the gun, the action with the gun, or the handling of the gun is senseless. The other consideration is that the movie fan who has no knowledge of firearms is most likely not to notice anyways, which goes back to one reason why this happens in the first place - many people don't care about that.

One of my favorite "only in the movies" gun moments is when someone uses a revolver with a silencer. We know (I hope) that this is largely not worth the effort, but it was done in Magnum Force and in the original Manchurian Candidate, which are both great movies, aside from those misconceptions surrounding firearms.

[Gaerek]

An excellent example is "buck fever". Perfectly capable marksman at the range, fumbles and can't hit the broad side of a barn at the sight of a legal animal. Or the many accounts of people forgetting the safety on their firearm when being robbed, and continuing to pull the trigger again and again...

And thus, my point is made.

Hitting 25 for 30 at 125 yards while being shot at in a defensive situation AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Like I said, hitting a target at 100 yards, slow fire, no pressure isn't really a difficult thing to do. Someone who has never done it before, they'll have some difficulty. But once you learn how your gun behaves at that range, and how to aim, most people should be able to reliably hit a man sized target at 100 yards (or 125 as the case may be) at least 50-60% of the time.

Add in the buck fever aspect of it, and you'll be closer to 0% of the time than anything.

This is a topic that comes up a lot. No training is going to be able to prepare you to defend yourself if the time comes. If you're a handgun hunter, that 100 yard gong is a good thing to train with. If you're training for the possibility of having to fire in self defense, there's almost no benefit to shooting past 50 yards (and I'd even argue past 25 yards). There are other skills that I need to work on (and I'm an OK shot...). Being able to hit a target out to 100 yards might be fun to do (and it is) but it's benefit for defensive shooting is almost nothing.

I train at around 10 yards, give or take 10 yards. I practice rapid fire, malfunction drills, reloads, movement, using cover, multiple threats, firing from retention, etc. Although there is no guarantee any of these skills will need to be used in any defensive shooting I might be a part of, there's a far higher probability that those skills will be used than skill hitting something out to 100 yards.

Unfortunately, since we're talking about a fictional story here, the author can put whatever they want. And we can argue it all day long. Let me amend my original position. I said it'd be impossible to hit 25 for 30 at 125 yards. A better way to put it would be it's highly improbable.

[L_Killkenny]

Because statistically, if I am in a shooting situation, I won't have to hit a gong at 100 yards...instead, I'll have to hit an attacker at under 10 yards.

Statistically the odds I have to hit an attacker at any range is slim. Where as the odds I'm gonna have/want to hit that critter or gong or rabid pop can are at 100%. You may not believe this but most guns are owned for fun not outta fear. Set your drills aside and have some fun for Lord's sake.

[Gaerek]

Statistically the odds I have to hit an attacker at any range is slim. Where as the odds I'm gonna have/want to hit that critter or gong or rabid pop can are at 100%. You may not believe this but most guns are owned for fun not outta fear. Set your drills aside and have some fun for Lord's sake.

Oh, I didn't realize that you're the guy who sets the definition of what fun is.

I do have fun with what I'm doing. I look forward to hitting the range everytime I go, regardless of what I'm doing. The chances I'll have to hit a critter at any range is zero. Not against hunting or varminiting or anything like that, I just don't participate in it. I'm more likely going to have to shoot at someone to defend myself, than shoot a critter for fun.

Running through an IDPA-like scenario is incredibly fun, and a huge adrenaline rush. More so than slow firing at a 100 yard gong. But since you say that's what's fun, and training for the possibility of being viciously attacked isn't fun, I guess I'm wrong.

Anyhow, the original post was about a defensive "fear" induced situation. Not hitting a hog (or gong, or whatever) at 100 yards. 25 out of 30 with a 1911 at 125 yards is highly improbable, and there is likely no amount of practical training that will get you to the point where you could do what was described in that situation.

[RickB]

125 yards with a rifle is easy. For a "sniper", it should be a 100% hit potential.
At that distance, the accuracy of the pistol isn't the issue, but the accuracy of the shooter. Assuming the sniper was in any way concealed from view (prone, behind a tree, etc.), then I'd say one or two hits, in a hail of thirty rounds fired, would be reasonable. 25-for-30 wouldn't be realistic at any distance, beyond execution-style.
I've shot a .45 at a 36'x18' steel plate at 115 yards, and was able to hit it, but not every time, and certainly not the first time, as it took a half-dozen rounds to figure out where to hold to hit it.

[militant]

Given the scenario, I'd rather be the sniper at 125 yard against two people with 1911s. Can the shot be done, sure. But under the stress of being fired back at with a pistol, unlikely. I hit a bowling pin the other day at 70 yards with my 22/45 mk3. These people on here practicing pistol accuracy at 100 yards are seriously wasting ammo. Right tool for the job folks. Go grab a rifle.

[L_Killkenny]

Running through an IDPA-like scenario is incredibly fun, and a huge adrenaline rush. More so than slow firing at a 100 yard gong. But since you say that's what's fun, and training for the possibility of being viciously attacked isn't fun, I guess I'm wrong.

Your posts didn't talk about fun or indicate you were having fun, they were very much based on SD and it had little to nothing to do with the OP's 125 yards shot question. IT very much had a "you need a gun for short range SD and nothing else" tone. They also contained an attitude towards anyone who takes slow aimed fire as if they were somehow beneith your ubber short range, run and gun expertise. Glad you have fun running your drills or your courses but the "it's the only true use for a handgun" attitude that shows us nothing.

When it comes to the OP's question I could see how you may think 125 yards hits are beyond the realm of possibility. Most of your shootin at 5-10 yards? Really? No wonder you have trouble with the 25 yard shots on your IDPA course. That'd be a chip shot for that slow fire bullseye shooter even if he did have to rush.

[Gaerek]

Your posts didn't talk about fun or indicate you were having fun, they were very much based on SD and it had little to nothing to do with the OP's 125 yards shot question.

I would say my posts had very much to do with the 125 yard shot question. Slow fire on a long range target with a handgun will not prepare you to defend yourself with said handgun, against someone with a rifle at 125 yards. My point was in response to someone who was disparaging people who practice at "5 yards" and can't hit anything past 30 yards. Beyond that, a shooter with a rifle, against 2 people with handguns at 125 yards is no contest, unless you're very lucky. The guy with the rifle will almost certainly win, unless you've been training to defensively hit a long range target with a handgun. No one does this. Some will shoot long range for fun, or handgun hunting, or whatever, but being shot at, by someone with a superior weapon system for the situation is a completely different ball game.

IT very much had a "you need a gun for short range SD and nothing else" tone.

Are you saying you'd rather have a handgun at long range than say a rifle? I'll agree that at any range, a handgun is better than nothing, but at such extreme distances, a handgun is practically useless for defensive purposes. If I were in the situation outlined by the OP, certainly, I'd do everything I could do, but I'm a realist. There's practically no way I will win this fight.

They also contained an attitude towards anyone who takes slow aimed fire as if they were somehow beneith your ubber short range, run and gun expertise.

Huh? I'd re-read your post. Your post was dripping with that same type of language. As if there's no way you can have fun doing anything but long range slow fire, and other people aren't doing it right. This thread isn't about what training or shooting is most fun. It's about whether someone can hit 25 for 30, at a human sized target, at 125 yards. My thoughts on training were only to highlight the fact that the scenario given by the OP was highly improbable.

I have fun shooting. I do all sorts of kinds of shooting. I enjoy IDPA/IPSC style scenarios the most. They're exciting, and a very serious challenge. I also have fun taking my Mossberg 702 out to range and shooting cans, or whatever else I might have. Again, the context of this thread isn't about what's fun. YOU changed it to that. I will never disparage someone doing something they're having fun with, especially when it comes to shooting.

Glad you have fun running your drills or your courses but the "it's the only true use for a gun" attitude that shows us nothing.

YOU'RE the one who brought up the fun aspect. That has NO bearing WHATSOEVER on this thread. It shows us nothing. If the thread was, "What kind of shooting is the most fun?" we would be on topic. You made it about what was fun. My comments on training and practice were aimed at others, and to help make my point. Nice derail, there.

When it comes to the OP's question I could see how you may think 125 yards hits are beyond the realm of possibility. Most of your shootin at 5-10 yards? Really? No wonder you have trouble with the 25 yard shots on your IDPA course.

Ahh, the ad hominem. This is the one that get's brought out when you realize you have nothing else to offer in the argument.

Let me rephrase, maybe you'll understand:

25 for 30 at 125 yards, with a handgun, being shot at by a rifle. (Just to make sure you fully understand the scenario).

This is almost to the realm of impossibility. Could it be done? I try to never say never, so I will say sure, it's possible. But it is highly unlikely. Hitting a human sized target at 125 with a handgun, slow fire is certainly possible, and I've done it several times (well, never shot at anything past 100 yard with a handgun, anyway). Doing it under stress, and under attack, it's just probably not gonna happen, no matter how much you'd like it to.

[L_Killkenny]

Slow fire on a long range target with a handgun will not prepare you to defend yourself with said handgun, against someone with a rifle at 125 yards.

It goes a dang sight farther in preparing a shooter for that very unusual circumstance than shootin B27's at 5 yards.

but at such extreme distances, a handgun is practically useless for defensive purposes.

Think we can all agree that it's an oxymoron using the terms "extreme distance" and "defensive purposes" in the same sentence. Let alone when we throw handguns into the mix. But then, handguns aren't nearly as limited as you seem to think they are. Shooter maybe, not the gun. I'm not about to defend the premise of the OP's book, it was dumb, but I'll guarantee you wouldn't want to be at 125 yards if I started shooting 15 rounds of .45acp as fast as I could pull the trigger. The odds I score better than 25% is slim to none but how many times would I have to hit? I can pull mighty fast, a man isn't that small and 125 yards isn't that far. Even for a lowly .45.

We could debate all day about who's responsible for the thread drift, You, me, AZAK, etc. You want to say I brought fun up, I'm fine with that. But your post (#28) definitely aired against using handguns for anything but close range, run and gun, SD type shooting. That is what I was responding too, my feelings on the OP's book were covered well before you chimed in.

[Gaerek]

My point in #28 was in direct response to Buckrub in #27 who was disparaging those who only practice shorter "defensive" distances. You seem to take that to mean that my point is somehow that a handgun is a short range tool. I've said numerous times that I believe it's possible to use a handgun at longer ranges, but it's inefficient at it, and given the chances at being in a long range shootout being very slim, it doesn't make sense, from a practical, defensive standpoint, to train further out than 50 yards or so.

I even showed a situation in an earlier post where an Air Force SF fired 4 shots at 70 yards with an M9, and hit 2 out of 4. That's extraordinary. You will not find much better practical, defensive shooting, in a real life situation than that. 125 yards, in a shootout with nothing but a 1911 is a sucky place to be against a shooter with a rifle, and your chances are very slim. In that situation, I'd be wishing I had a rifle. Just the same as I'd be wishing I had a handgun in a situation where I was 10 yards from an aggressor with a handgun, and all I had was a knife. Could I win this fight? It's possible, but improbable.

In your scenario of unloading a 1911 at 125 yards as quick as you can, you're right, I wouldn't want to be in front of that, even if I were prone, and all you had was about a 10 inch target. But if I had a rifle...well, I'll let you draw your own conclusion. I can empty an AR magazine very quickly, and I'll bet I can get better than 75% on a human target with it at 125 yards. Unfortunately, now we're degenerating to what if's, and that's rarely constructive.

Is it possible to hit something at 125 yards with a handgun? Yes, of course. Is the book full of crap? Without a doubt. Is a handgun a good weapon for those kind of ranges? It will work, but it's far from the optimum tool. Is it a good idea to practice a bunch of different disciplines? You bet. It's good to be prepared for as many situations as possible. My training is limited to 20 yards, mainly because most of my shooting is done at a 20 yard indoor range, due to a variety of reasons. But if I can get out to the nearby outdoor range, I'll push myself to 50 yards. Rarely will I go out further than that with a handgun, mostly because it's not practical to use up a ton of ammo past that, though I will go further, just so I can get a feel for it, and to figure out how, just in case.

[BoogieMan]

125 yds with a 45cal. I guess it will do it but you could watch the slug fly through the air. They leave the barrel at around 1000fps. By time they get to 125 yds what are they traveling? 68 fps. Most snipers could probably duck out of the way when they saw the flash of the muzzle. If your talking 357, 327, 41 or probably any other rnd beside a 45 then it would be realistic

[JD0x0]

They leave the barrel at around 1000fps. By time they get to 125 yds what are they traveling? 68 fps. Most snipers could probably duck out of the way when they saw the flash of the muzzle.

ballistic calc says 861 FPS @ 125 yrds with a 230 gr round nose at sea level and 0 degrees Fahrenheit temp.
Time of flight at that range is .41 seconds. So it is plausible for a sniper to duck under cover before the bullet reaches him, if he's really sharp.

[tipoc]

In the book I am reading, the hero is shot at but only grazed by a rifle bullet from a sniper, laying prone, 125 yards away. He and his wife each pull their model 1911s and fire back, two magazines each. Of aproximately 30 rounds, the sniper is hit 25 times.

Well, if the "sniper" is hit 25 out of 30 or so times, clearly he's not much of a "sniper". To be hit that often means he clearly he had no cover but instead sought concealment behind a clear plastic sheet.

Could be though, he said to himself, "Darn it! All these rocks and trees and bushes and such that I'm hunkered down behind of make it hard for me to see! Best if I get out in front of them where I can get a clear view."

Then after he'd been hit likely he said to himself, "Darn it! I've been shot 3 or so times. Probably just lucky shots. It's best if I just lie here as still as I can get. They're bound to start missing pretty soon! I mean what are the odds? Likely they train only for 'shorter defensive distances', they'll start missing soon enough.

"What's that old question? If it's pouring rain do you get more wet if you stand still for 30 seconds or if you run for the same time? I believe it's when ya stay still." He likely said.

Now that I've thought about this I wonder...why did I think about this?

tipoc

[tipoc]

Maybe this is fun.

From Boogieman:

125 yds with a 45cal. I guess it will do it but you could watch the slug fly through the air. They leave the barrel at around 1000fps. By time they get to 125 yds what are they traveling? 68 fps. Most snipers could probably duck out of the way when they saw the flash of the muzzle. If your talking 357, 327, 41 or probably any other rnd beside a 45 then it would be realistic

Boogieman is poking fun of course but;

Let's see Hornady TAP 230 gr. jhp from a 5" barrel leaves the muzzle at a claimed 950 fps with 461 ft pds of energy, at 125 yards it's doing 855 fps and 360 ft pds of energy.

The Remington 230 gr jhp leaves the same barrel at 835 fps. and at 125 is doing 751 fps with with 289 ft. pds. of energy left to it, enough for serious hurt and a good momentum to penetrate.

No need to look at faster 200 gr. loads and bullets cuz ya get the point from the above.

From JD0x0:

Time of flight at that range is .41 seconds. So it is plausible for a sniper to duck under cover before the bullet reaches him, if he's really sharp.

With less than one second to see the round coming and duck and with 30 + rounds coming your way you'd likely have to be a Matrix type ducker or be on the Professional Dodge Ball circuit, if they had such, to be able to force a miss.

But it's irrelevant because the "sniper" was already laying down and decided to stay put and not move as he was protected by his Brock-A-Brella.

tipoc

[Matno]

If my target were two life-sized silhouette targets side by side, I can hit them every time at 200 yards with my p226. Smaller than that would require shooting from a rest and/or a lot of luck. The cool thing at that range is I hit almost right at point of aim (i.e. no hold over required). Weird.

[AZAK]

Are you saying you'd rather have a handgun at long range than say a rifle? I'll agree that at any range, a handgun is better than nothing, but at such extreme distances, a handgun is practically useless for defensive purposes. If I were in the situation outlined by the OP, certainly, I'd do everything I could do, but I'm a realist. There's practically no way I will win this fight.

I would venture that most of us do not walk around daily with a rifle. Often we do have a handgun with us.

125 yards in not an "extreme distance" for many handgun shooters.

All that it takes is one well aimed shot; even in a "defensive purpose".

I would take a moment to consider mindset.

To paraphrase an old saying, "I am the weapon, my gun is a tool. Or is it I am a tool and my gun is the weapon." It almost always comes down to the person behind the trigger, not as much as what "hardware" is connected to the trigger.

Sure, most rifles are easier to hit your target with at 125 yards than most handguns, but that does not mean that one can not easily hit a target at 125 yards with a handgun; unless you do not have the skill set to do so or are physically unable to do so.

Don't be surprised if when you argue for your limitations, that they are granted.

YMMV

[kcub]

http://listverse.com/2009/11/13/top-...rs-in-history/

Scroll down to #1, a Finn who took 200 Russians with a Suomi 9mm.

[BuckRub]

I k ow I can hit most 10" gongs at 100 yards and sure many here can do the same. And the ones who say not- I'm sure you never practice for it and can't. There's some on here who prob can't even hit at 10 yards. We all train different and there's some who don't really even train.

[OkieGentleman]

I save my plastic milk jugs and take them to the range. Fill them with water from the faucet at the range and leave off the lids. My grandchildren and myself regularly hit them at 50 yards. You know you hit it because of the fountain you get when you hit one. You should have seen my grandson's face the first time he hit a water jug with a 45ACP. To heck with the gong put out a water jug.