Practical Pistol Training Distances.

Discussion in 'Training & Safety' started by Dallas53, Feb 27, 2019.

  1. Yes. More than 15 yards for pistol.

    22.6%
  2. No. 15 yards, or less for a pistol.

    74.2%
  3. Yes. More than 20 yards for shotgun, rifle or carbine.

    48.4%
  4. No. 20 yards, or less for shotgun, rifle or carbine.

    9.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. PaBushMan

    PaBushMan Well-Known Member

    1,817
    2,324
    113
    Yes good to practice at all distances. My little pocket pistols i practice at shorter ranges. Because that what they are designed for. My son videoed me shooting at a cinder block at 25 yards with MY tri-star C-100. I feel it is a mid range pistol. My 1st youtube vid i hope to more.
     
    Rifling82 likes this.
  2. SGWGunsmith

    SGWGunsmith Well-Known Member Supporter

    4,355
    7,706
    113
    I like to read about others choices also, but it doesn't necessarily mean I jump up grab my Glock and go try it. Sometimes yah just gotta have a cold one and think over if, standing on one leg, with your tongue pointed up toward your nose and squinting, really works for you.
     
    JRDallas, Dallas53 and Rifling82 like this.

  3. Rifling82

    Rifling82 Well-Known Member Supporter

    4,410
    7,772
    113
    I enjoy a challenge, shooting at 3 to 5 yards seems like a waste..... And I've watched so called experts on YouTube shoot at there "range" they do mag dump after mag dump shooting at one target, ive always enjoyed setting up multiple targets going back and forth from Target to target
     
    Caveman Jim, JRDallas and Dallas53 like this.
  4. dmodguy

    dmodguy Member Supporter

    50
    60
    18
    I’ve been a member for several years but never posted. I’m liking this group now that I’m partially slowed down. I had an interesting experience a few weeks ago that kind of pertains to this discussion. I joined a range’s gun club that allows holster use and other not normal practice methods, but you have to qualify through courses that are normally 6 hours long.
    I started shooting seriously at 18 and I’m 65 now. I haven’t shot regularly for the last 5-6 years at least.
    When I was shooting I never practiced at less than 20-30 yards. I did that and longer distances for years. I shot a lot too. I didn’t know about practicing shorter distances.
    Long story short, I missed the 6 hour courses. Their fault. They gave me a private course and crammed it in to 1&1/4 hours. That included my qualifying time. To qualify I had to draw and fire 5 rounds in 7 seconds and had to keep the rounds in a standard, round target. 10-12 inches
    I think.
    My instructor told me about sight acquisition etc. which I already knew.
    The distances from holster were 5-7-10 yards.
    I bought the holster 3 days before.
    I qualified (barely) but I never saw/acquired the sights. I drew and aimed instinctively because I was nervous about being able to do it. The instructor said I always used 2 1/2-3 seconds to draw and then fired my 5 rounds (the first shot double action each time) to squeak by and qualify
    Bottom line, multiple years removed from regular practice, ancient muscle memory still worked.
    While I was nervous about drawing because I never did it, I didn’t worry as much about my shots/hits.
    I guess my point is, if you are training a new shooter it should be the very basics and if you spend the time it will be with you for a long time.
    I believe both of your arguments are correct. I feel you are both dead on but talking about 2 different things.
    (Maybe I wandered too much)
     
    Caveman Jim, JRDallas, Wambli and 4 others like this.
  5. Rifling82

    Rifling82 Well-Known Member Supporter

    4,410
    7,772
    113
    WELCOME DMOD!..... don't be shy, come on in, you didn't wonder to much...... Now that Dallas53o_O...... He's a wanderer!
     
  6. dmodguy

    dmodguy Member Supporter

    50
    60
    18
     
    Dallas53 likes this.
  7. PaBushMan

    PaBushMan Well-Known Member

    1,817
    2,324
    113
    Yep jump on in. And hello there. :)
     
    Rifling82 likes this.
  8. dmodguy

    dmodguy Member Supporter

    50
    60
    18
  9. Rentacop

    Rentacop Well-Known Member

    2,809
    1,916
    113
    I wonder how many pistol instructors you have trained under ? 50+ ? How can you possibly know for a fact that so many instructors are bad ?
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  10. Dallas53

    Dallas53 Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,170
    17,382
    113
    You would surprised at the number of people that can hit accurately at the longer distances then miss at closer range. you would think the opposite is true, but even myself years ago found that to be the case. Which is why I started practicing at close range many years ago.

    Rentacop, why not add some constructive criticism to the discussion, rather than just criticism of everyone. You really come off as a sad and pathetic person who has no friends and wants everyone else to be just as miserable as yourself.

    As the old saying goes, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." But I'll expand upon that for you, maybe if you don't have anything positive to add, maybe keep your negative comments to yourself from now on.
     
    Trunk Monkey, JRDallas and Rifling82 like this.
  11. Rentacop

    Rentacop Well-Known Member

    2,809
    1,916
    113
    Negative comments ? I've seen posts on this forum that slam cops as incompetent shooters in general, many instructors as bogus and out to take your money , gun store employees as often being ignoramuses , many gun owners being unconcerned or ignorant or whatever and Second Amendment hard liners as " extremists " .
    I reserve the right to answer such negative posts .
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  12. Merlin40

    Merlin40 Member

    52
    15
    8
    I train them at 5, and 7 yards, until they are competent at that distance. It builds confidence for shooting later at longer distances. I also encourage them to practice at least once a month. Shooting is a perishable skill.
     
    JRDallas likes this.
  13. sheriffjohn

    sheriffjohn Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,399
    2,475
    113
    Now that this thread has returned, I'd like to just add that during my later years as an instructor we were able to purchase quite a few quality steel reactionary targets which add an important element to marksmanship. Instant Feedback. The shooter (and everyone else watching) can SEE where those rounds are going. Steel targets improved scores on standard qualifications over the course of a year. Formal courses of fire are necessary to record progress but informal shooting is valuable (and fun).
     
    JRDallas likes this.
  14. TelstaR

    TelstaR Active Member

    186
    121
    43
    I agree with you

    Most life threatening attacks are going to be rather close. Many of those attacks are going to land you somewhere other than your preferred "ready stance". The ground suddenly comes up and smacks you or a couple of 200 pound goons are on top of you or you are suddenly struck and injured by some unknown object. You may even find yourself suddenly facing a person who already has the drop on you.

    Sights ( sight picture) are probably not going to matter all that much and neither is fancy optics or traditional shooting stances. If a criminal attack comes.. 0-15 feet is probably going to be your arena. That said, conventional wisdom dictates training 0-25 yards with a pistol. I tend to subscribe to conventional wisdom most of the time. I will admit that most of my training is done within a 10 yard square. However, I do make it a point to include training out to 25 yards.

    In regards to rifles, I am rather old fashioned and see rifles as "distance weapons". I am a proponent of 0-100 yards minimum with a rifle.

    People tend to imagine fighting that unfolds in a predictable manner and somewhere within their preferred comfort zone/skill set. People naturally want their personal skills to be relevant but often times, they are not because fighting is not like television or movies and you probably wont see it coming.

    I say all that to highlight the need to step away from the 1,2 3 ready, get set, go - mentality.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
    Ghost1958 and JimRau like this.
  15. sheriffjohn

    sheriffjohn Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,399
    2,475
    113
    I think most will agree that "instinct" shooting is the best goal for personal defense up close. However, that's not a good place to start training. Best to start with really, really basic skills. Safety always comes first regardless of the shooting venue. Weapon familiarity second to be demonstrated one-on-one with a knowledgeable teacher.
    I want to see a cadet always watch the muzzle, physically check for loaded/unloaded, and field-strip/reassemble before we go shooting for the first time. We had tests.

    Basic marksmanship skills are essential. Weapon retention is essential. Shoot/don't shoot drills, shooting from cover/concealment, shooting while moving, hitting moving targets, draw/fire/reholster, jam clearing, tactical reloading, night firing, weapon transition (pistol-shotgun-etc.), weak hand shooting (and reloading), and stress fire. Best "civilian" training is, just my opinion, IDPA/IPSC type competition.

    We taught "there is no typical attack". You must be able to win whatever happens.
    Training based on shooting statistics won't prepare for the real world. There are a lot of criminals armed with handguns, there are also crazies armed with rifles.

    "Shoot low, Sheriff, they're ridin' Shetlands !"
     
    JRDallas and Ghost1958 like this.
  16. TelstaR

    TelstaR Active Member

    186
    121
    43
    training cannot be boundless and there has to be a practical means to limit training to a reasonably acceptable framework. You often do that by incorporating statistics and gathered intelligence into your training mindset. You certainly want to cover and have effective responses to the most common dangers and the most common mechanisms that produce such dangers. Where does that information come from? .. Stats and other intelligence. I agree that a person should not count on their conflict to always fall within statistical norms, it might not. At the same time, you cannot develop a competent training curriculum without leaning ( at least to some degree) on statistical data. Advanced training is something else and advanced training is where you can more easily explore specialized threats and freak circumstances. General training should probably lean heavily on what is commonly encountered and not the outlandish.

    A person can say that there is no typical attack.. but there is. A person can say that memorialized stats are not the real world .. but they are. All that said, I would err on the side of caution and consider a potentially dangerous situation to likely be worse( more complex) than I expect not as I expect. I also would not set out with the bare minimum in any situation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
    Rentacop likes this.
  17. Rentacop

    Rentacop Well-Known Member

    2,809
    1,916
    113
    If a guy can load and unload, draw and place shots on a man-sized target at 21 feet two-handed, he can defend himself . If that minimal training is all he has time or money for, at least he armed .
    Ideally, a man who uses a gun for defense will want to be as educated and trained as possible .
    Forcing everybody to learn to shoot with weak hand only, to learn 4 types of reloads ( for a Glock that holds 18 rounds ), to count his shots ( never happens in a gunfight ) etc. is expensive and not necessary .
     
  18. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,053
    3,048
    113
    That is where I disagree, start close (survival) and move out from there. To many people start with a 'draw' to the two hand point and this will HAND your gun to an attacker who is close or charging you. Teach first to go the 'rock and lock' (point shooting) and fire, then teach to shoot at the intermediate range, 'in a fight front site'. If you have time then get to the actual 'principals of marksmanship'. This helps to build confidence as well, which is ABSOLUTELY necessary to WIN THE FIGHT. ;)
     
  19. TelstaR

    TelstaR Active Member

    186
    121
    43
    a persons ability to overcome an attacker is not contingent upon their attitude or confidence level. Being confident can actually be a negative if it emboldens you to the degree that you make poor or hasty decisions. Confidents is generally a better platform to work from than uncertainty, hesitancy or timidness but it does not mean that lack of confidence assures defeat.
     
  20. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,053
    3,048
    113
    LOL X 100000!:rolleyes: I said confident, not conceded/vain, like some people!:) And a statement like your shows your lack of real life experience in 'the mud, the blood, and beer', aka. the 'street'.:rolleyes: