Effective Fighting Distance Practice?

[1-DAB]

i've read and tried several qualification courses of fire for different police agencies, and they all seem to be weighted to performance at close ranges.

now, is that because that is the most common distance they are likely to see, or is it weighted to pass most officers by keeping the distances close.

i remember long ago reading about NRA matches (bullseye) being dominated by law enforcement officers (border patrol stands out).

have standards changed to ensure more pass, or to reflect reality? and if most encounters at that close, is that a reflection of other errors?

[BigJimP]

The firearms instructors I've spoken to recently -- for police depts in my area --- design the handgun COF for qualification based on what they think best exhibits the skills the officers will need in the field ( time and distance especially ). I've made it a point to talk to those guys when they're doing some training at one of my local ranges.

If they are members of a more elite unit like Swat ..there are additional training and performance requirements.

[1-DAB]

i would suggest that it would be beneficial to know you can hit a target at distances beyond 10 yards. i know i can out to 35 yards.

[shafter]

i've read and tried several qualification courses of fire for different police agencies, and they all seem to be weighted to performance at close ranges.

now, is that because that is the most common distance they are likely to see, or is it weighted to pass most officers by keeping the distances close.

i remember long ago reading about NRA matches (bullseye) being dominated by law enforcement officers (border patrol stands out).

have standards changed to ensure more pass, or to reflect reality? and if most encounters at that close, is that a reflection of other errors?

Part of our biannual qualifications include firing at 25 yards from standing, kneeling, and prone positions from behind a simulated barricade. We also move and shoot during quals. A law enforcement officer is much more likely to need to engage a threat at longer distances.

Although I think it's extremely unlikely for non LE to ever need to engage at 25 yards I don't think it's a bad thing at all to train at that distance. Anything that improves one's skills is a good thing in my book.

[buckmt1]

Practice Practice Practice with the weapon you will carry\use. Short or Long distance..
need advice ask someone do what's right and comfortable for you every situation is different
remember the bullet does not have a brain it goes where it's pointed.

[dahermit]

I practice at distances out to 50 yards with handguns, and sleep a lot better for it.

Assuming civilian, can you give an example scenario where a person could be involved in a gunfight at fifty yards and it would still be viewed by the authorities/prosecutor as self defence? I want to know for a friend.

[kilimanjaro]

You want SD scenarios for long range handgun use?

1.) You and your family are at the mall, when a crazed individual pulls an AK out from under his long coat and starts shooting shoppers. The security guard is hit in the first volley. Or, you are the security guard. You get your family and others out the rear door of the mall shop, and take cover behind a planter. You have a choice of attempting a shot at 43 1/2 yards or not.

2.) You just walked your child to school, are returning home and are 276 feet from the school entrance when a van pulls up and attempts to kidnap your child. If they get your kid into the van it can rapidly pull away. You have a choice of attempting a shot, or not. There are no other kids in the line of fire.

3.) You are at an outdoor concert, a grassy bowl with a stage at the center. Suddenly, three terrorists produce weapons and jump up on the stage, then start shooting concertgoers. You are in the middle crowd, 196 feet from the stage. You have a choice of attempting a shot, or not.

Far-fetched? Not at all. Likely to happen to you? Probably not. These kind of events are rare, but they do occur. Should you plan for one of them? No. Should you have the skill level to allow you to make the choices? If not, why not?

Any one of these is certainly self-defense.

[g.willikers]

Ever heard of goal lines or out-of-bound lines for gun fights?
Me, neither.
When I was younger and could see that far, my pals and I used to shoot pistols at gallon and quart sized water filled bottles - at 100 yards - with handguns.
About the same size as a human head or smaller.
And we mostly hit them, too.
Not that we thought it was actually a skill we'd need in real life, but it was encouraging if we ever did need it.
Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

[F. Guffey]

I have carried since 1964, when a permit was possible I applied. During one of the classes the Instructor mentioned 'a good shooting' and I had to ask "Were you there?".

The answer was no so I asked if he would like to talk to someone that was. We all know the best answer would have been "NO!" and then move on and get out early, the good shooting had to do with who was telling the story.

F. Guffey

[SG29736]

Most people limit their practice to the distance that they can shoot a group that is acceptable to them. Luckily for them statistics show that a high percentage of defensive incidents occur at around 3-7 yards. This gives them a convenient excuse to limit the distance they practice at. If they were capable of shooting well at 20-25 yards they would advocate practicing at longer distances. Mark

[WVsig]

Most people limit their practice to the distance that they can shoot a group that is acceptable to them. Luckily for them statistics show that a high percentage of defensive incidents occur at around 3-7 yards. This gives them a convenient excuse to limit the distance they practice at. If they were capable of shooting well at 20-25 yards they would advocate practicing at longer distances. Mark

This mentality is simply not true. Most people I see at the range cannot group well at any distance. It is not just at 20-25 yards. I see very few people grouping well at 7 and 10. Most people who shoot do not shoot often enough to gain proficiency or enough to maintain it.

I am not talking about people on gun board because lets be realistic we are a minority in terms of the overall gun owning and carrying population. We are enthusiast and I would guess are less than 10% of the firearm owning public. Most people are not looking for excuses they simply do not shoot often enough to be good. Honestly most people are doing the best they can with the skills they have. Why the need to denigrate them?

Then you have people like me. I can hit keep the majority of my shots in the "0" of a IDPA target or the "A" zone of a IPSC target at 25 yards but not at speed. I can hit a 2/3 sized IDPA steel target at 60 yards 9 out of ten shots on most days, again not at speed, but I choose to focus most of my shooting and training inside of 15 yards.

As I and others have stated it is good to practice at longer distances because flaws in your technique are hidden by shorter distances but for me it is not and never will be my focus. It is not that I cannot make shots at longer ranges that I do not shoot much at 50 yards. It is that I choose not to focus my limited range time on those distance because if I am "training" for a self defense use of a handgun it will not be at that distance.

I am not a LEO. I am not an "Operator" I do not shoot things or people for a living. I am an avg guy who likes to shoot and collect guns. I shoot almost weekly and I carry almost everywhere I can but I have a firm grasp of my limited skills and have defined for myself under what conditions I will and can engage.

Each person who carries or uses a handgun for self defense should do the same. It is not about excuses it is about a real world assessment of your skills.

For me even if I train up to where I can hit the "0" at 50 yards on an IDPA target 10 out of 10 times that does not mean I am going to be taking 50 yard shots. My personal risk reward assessment has predetermined there are very few if any situations where I feel that I would "need" to take such a shot. This is my personal decision.

[buckhorn_cortez]

I can't see well enough to practice to 50 yards...that's half a football field. I'll have to leave those shots to the heroes that populate gun forums and can shoot golf balls one-handed with a derringer at 100 yards...

The funny thing to me, is that you can watch Rob Leatham (he's supposed to be really good) run "triple Bill drills" and he doesn't shoot as well as people claim they do in these kind of threads.

Somewhere there's a disconnect...

[shafter]

You want SD scenarios for long range handgun use?

1.) You and your family are at the mall, when a crazed individual pulls an AK out from under his long coat and starts shooting shoppers. The security guard is hit in the first volley. Or, you are the security guard. You get your family and others out the rear door of the mall shop, and take cover behind a planter. You have a choice of attempting a shot at 43 1/2 yards or not.

If this one goes wrong and you hit someone else you are going to get flayed in court. You're out, and your family is out, I'd be driving away as fast as possible with them. You don't know who else is out there.

2.) You just walked your child to school, are returning home and are 276 feet from the school entrance when a van pulls up and attempts to kidnap your child. If they get your kid into the van it can rapidly pull away. You have a choice of attempting a shot, or not. There are no other kids in the line of fire.

You're going to chance a shot at some distance against someone who is struggling with your child and trying to force them into a van? I think the best pistol shot in the world is going is going to stand an equal chance of killing their kid. I would follow in my car while getting on 911 asap. This is a tough one because if they disappear with your child it isn't going to end well.

3.) You are at an outdoor concert, a grassy bowl with a stage at the center. Suddenly, three terrorists produce weapons and jump up on the stage, then start shooting concertgoers. You are in the middle crowd, 196 feet from the stage. You have a choice of attempting a shot, or not.

How are you even going to get a shot? You're in the middle of a crowd that is going crazy with panic. You pull a gun and people are either going to take you out, trample you in their escape, or at least jostle you and cross your line of fire as you try to take aim. Dude, just get out of their as fast as possible or hit the deck. You aren't making that shot.

Far-fetched? Not at all. Likely to happen to you? Probably not. These kind of events are rare, but they do occur. Should you plan for one of them? No. Should you have the skill level to allow you to make the choices? If not, why not?

Any one of these is certainly self-defense.

Situations requiring justifiable long range self defense shots just don't happen in the civilian world.

[amd6547]

Sure you might need to take a long shot...and 50yds is not that far.
Stand at the 50yds line sometime, and look at guys changing targets...it isn't that far. Think you could hit one?
More important, think they could hit you?

[WVsig]

Sure you might need to take a long shot...and 50yds is not that far.
Stand at the 50yds line sometime, and look at guys changing targets...it isn't that far. Think you could hit one?
More important, think they could hit you?

The problem I see with this logic is the person firing at you is not considering the collateral damage if he misses. You however as an avg citizen do. I can make that shot on a square range even under a timed constraint but that does not mean I can make that shot with the target possibly moving and shooting back.

Also I have not seen a clear example yet in this thread where I would "need to take a long shot". shafter did a good job of debunking some of the ones already brought up.

Originally Posted by buckhorn cortez

The funny thing to me, is that you can watch Rob Leatham (he's supposed to be really good) run "triple Bill drills" and he doesn't shoot as well as people claim they do in these kind of threads.

+1 Love this comment!

[amd6547]

A friend of mines house was being shot at from about 50yds. He didn't take the shot because he wasn't confident he could do it with the 2" Model 10 he was holding.
The New Mexico police told him he should have...there was no chance of collateral damage.
I used to backpack a lot, and I always carried. Seemed like being able to shoot long distance could be useful in the great outdoors, so I practiced.
It isn't that hard to do, and I often shoot service size handguns out to 100yds. 50yds is nothing.

[SG29736]

WVsig. I didn't say that the people I refered to shot well at the distances they practice at. I said that their groups were acceptable to "them". You or I might not be satisfied with their result but they are. Mark

[AK103K]

Situations requiring justifiable long range self defense shots just don't happen in the civilian world.

So what exactly is the cut off? Do you carry a range finder, call time, and get out the official TFL endorsed CCW rule book, and look up whats legal?

Let me ask this, since terrorism is so prevalent these days in the news, if youre not in a position to use the standard TFL suggested "run away" tactic, and for some reason, dont have the skills and/or gun to be reasonably effective, what are your choices? Do you fall down and hope for the best? Run in circles? Hide behind a fat person? What?

Keep in mind too, "terrorism" isnt TFL's "official version" of self defense either, its a whole other level. ROE are what they are, if and when your survival is in play. Are you the least bit prepared for that? Or do you only consider what youre told is self defense?


For a gun board, and people who really should know better (at least I would hope they would), there seem to be a plethora of people here who are willing to accept less that acceptable standards of skill, and carry something that should really be a third line gun, and consider themselves good to go, in "most" any situation they might encounter. Or at least what they are "told" they will encounter.

Taking into consideration what many seem to accept as realistic for practice and skills, and as much as I am vehemently against any such thing, maybe we really should have "tests" to validate you having a gun. If all you can reasonably do, is kinda sorta shoot a fist sized group at a static target at 3 yards, hows that going to play out for the rest of "us", if you have to shoot any kind of "realistic" target beyond that (or even at 3 yards and in), and especially one thats moving and probably shooting back?

[mavracer]

I don't get it either AK
A 50 yard shot requirement isn't likely so I don't practice 50 yards isn't far from getting in a dire spot where you need to protect yourself isn't likely so I don't carry.

Even if it isn't likely what's the downside of being a good enough shot to be confident at 50 yards?

[K_Mac]

I really don't see this discussion ending well. AK, I am one of those guys who sometimes only carries "a third line gun." I also do not regularly practice beyond 25 yards. I carry a gun for self-defense; to protect myself and those who are in my charge. I take this responsibility very seriously and train regularly. I do not train to overcome terrorists with my LCP. If I find myself in that position, I will do my best. I am comfortable with that.

[Frank Ettin]

This has generally been a good discussion. So let's call it a day before things deteriorate.