How can a handgun compete with a man armed with a rifle?

[Brit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by brit
Everyone seems to think this contest, if you would, between a rifleman, and a pistoleer? One on one!


Yes, that's the premise given the title of the thread:

How can a handgun compete with a man armed with a rifle?

You can come up with an infinite amount of situations in which someone with a pistol or a stick or a rock or no weapon at all triumphs over a rifleman.

They all pretty much come down to hide, then he doesn't see you until you can pop out at a close enough range for your available weapon to be effective.

What's your point?
45_auto is offline Report Post

My Point? How likely is it, with all of the points, back and forth, that in some area of a Town, or City, this one lonely Rifleman, is paired off, against this single pistol armed person, give me a break.

In every incident, that has happened, the rifle-armed terrorist, or nut case (which most of them are, nuts!) the first clue? BANG/BANG!

If you are the person in the sights of that Rifle, you are most probably, done like dinner.

If that is not the case, and a competent pistol shot, is in the area, with an accurate pistol (Glock 19, with a 4lb trigger, same pistol that has been shot at some distance, for instance) there could be a bullet, aimed at a man sized target, with a rifle, at some extended range, that hits said rifleman, in the throat?

For instance, with Dennis Wxxxxx a good friend (still). Was the RO in an IPSC match, in Ontario. Canada. At this time, we were to a man, armed with very accurate Colt .45s. My pistol was a made in 1913 accurized by Al Dinon, Colt 45, reblued, no idea how it came into Ontario, I bought it from a friend.
The trigger was the best trigger I had ever touched.

One of the stages was a little accuracy portion, 5 rounds total (if you hit the steel head plate first shot) this 6" plate was on a stand, at about 30m?

You started facing the RO, looking at the back of the range, hands at shoulder height. At the beep of the timer, you turned around, and engaged the plate first, when (and IF!) you hit the plate, 4 rounds were fired at an IPSC cardboard target, at 5m.

As soon as I saw the sights, the pistol fired! In fact, it just went off! Dennis said! "that was an AD!"
Yes, it was, but it cleaned the plate right off the stand!

The next 4 shots were in a group, center of the A zone. (at 5m?)

These things happen when you have been shooting for 62 years, more than once, I might add.

The only way this could happen with an active shooter with a Rifle, engaged by a CCW armed Pistol carrier? There would have to be a CCW person there!

Which up to this time, there has not been, here in the USA. Safe Zone's?

A Paster in South Africa once chased several terrorists, armed with AKs, out of his Church. Firing his Chiefs Special, from the pulpit! They never fired a shot, just turned tail, and ran.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by brit

If you are the person in the sights of that Rifle, you are most probably, done like dinner.

Excellent summation of the answer to the "rifle vs pistol at 100 yards" question.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

However, and many seem to forget this - in a mass shooting with 100s of people, you may not be in the sights of the gun people.

But they could be in your sights.

[Kosh75287]

Excellent summation of the answer to the "rifle vs pistol at 100 yards" question.

The assertion to which this comment pertains addresses one SMALL facet of the entire "aggressor with rifle vs. defender with pistol" equation. It leaves the other salient aspects completely unaddressed. Indeed, it leaves them unMENTIONED. Thus, it is NOT A SUMMATION, it is, at best, an EXCISION. Nice thing to do to malignancies, but not of value in a thoughtful discussion.

Because the statement focuses on the element most attractive to the poster of the quotation above, it is not objective, inclusive, instructive (not much, anyway), nor even salient. It fails MY criteria for "excellent", abysmally. Others may apply their criteria at will.

GLENN E. MEYER raises valid points. I'm not sure that there will ALWAYS be "hundreds" of potential victims in these situations, and since (I thought) we are discussing an aggressor with a rifle against a defender with a pistol at some "greater than usual pistol-distances" range, the population density of defenders won't ever be terribly high.

But because the aggressor "must be right 100% of the time" in deciding who is armed and must be taken out (first), and the defender(s) "must only get it right ONCE (per aggressor)", the odds in favor of the defender(s) may not be what we'd hope for, but neither are they hopeless. The odds of survival for EVERYONE drops precipitously if nobody tries to do anything.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thanks Kosh.

If we set up a showdown at Dodge City out in the open at 100 yards with skilled participants, one with a handgun and the other with a rifle - well, the first person is problematic.

But are we discussing a scenario that a TFL member might find themselves in?

A San Bernadino or Sandy Hook? Are you useless there?

Of course, from times past on TFL - the participant with a Taurus Judge will rule the day (couldn't resist - sorry! Ducking!).

[Kosh75287]

<laughing at Glenn E. Meyer> D'OH! ....you!....

[2damnold4this]

But Glen, what if the Taurus owner's opponent has a Rossi Circuit Judge and is 100 yards away?

[kilimanjaro]

As long as the defender is not using the much-maligned .41 Magnum or the .40 S&W, he should be OK, especially if his choice of weapon is a 1911 clone, but not an original US 1911, because they are all shot out and completely useless. He should also avoid the Ruger sixgun in .30 Carbine, because, as everyone knows, the carbine round will not penetrate Chinese Communist, er, I mean, Terrorist, outer clothing.

[gyvel]

Too many fantasy scenarios here, unless you're a cop.

[pax]

Too many fantasy scenarios here, unless you're a cop.

How can a handgun compete with a man armed with a rifle?

It can't.

Might as well plan to give up and die.

Oh, and make fun of anyone who says otherwise. Those poor saps think they can learn something worthwhile about self defense at longer distances using tools they actually carry. They think they can maybe even survive the unthinkable, with decent training and practice and a little bit of luck. What idiots!

Planning to give up is a much better plan than learning how to shoot.

After all, learning to defend yourself costs money and takes work. But planning to die? That doesn't cost anything.

Plus you can make fun of the rubes who have decided that they will do whatever it takes to survive. Those saps! They're every bit as idiotic as Andy Brown. (But, of course, the only reason he survived was because he was a cop. His own personal commitment to good training and regular practice, outside of work hours, had nothing to do with it. Cops are much brighter than civilians, and are the only people who can effectively use guns anyway...)

</sarcasm>

A Paster in South Africa once chased several terrorists, armed with AKs, out of his Church. Firing his Chiefs Special, from the pulpit! They never fired a shot, just turned tail, and ran.

That was Charl VanWyk, and he wrote about it in his book Shooting Back: the right and duty of self-defence. Good book and a good tale.

pax