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. TelstaR

    TelstaR Active Member

    186
    120
    43
    still.. (in my opinion) a persons ability to overcome their attacker is not contingent upon any particular level of confidence or having confidence at all.

    As far as my experience goes, it should be apparent what arena I hail from. You are welcome to assign whatever merit or lack of merit that you feel my comments carry. I offer them freely for the purpose of fruitful debate.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2020
  2. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,051
    3,041
    113
    Do I have to repeat myself???;) How many criminals have you interviewed or had contact with?
     

  3. TelstaR

    TelstaR Active Member

    186
    120
    43
    Over the course of 30 years? Interviewed formally? victims, offenders, witnesses, ...easily thousands. It doesn't mean I am always right and I do not claim to be an expert in anything, but it is a frame of reference.

    I don't mind disagreement, we all can typically learn something from honest debate. If you feel that confidence is "absolutely" necessary to "win the fight", please explain. I agree that confidence is generally a better mental state to take on such things but I disagree that its necessary. I would simply call it.. helpful(in a general sense).
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2020
  4. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,051
    3,041
    113
    Lets try this again. I may have been wrong to use the word 'absolutely', so lets just say confidence is a necessary element needed to win the fight.;) It is a fact that those who lack confidence seen to be very defensive and you CAN'T win the fight on defense, PERIOD! When it comes time to 'fight' you MUST take the offense to win. As a civilian fighting is the absolute (there's that word again);) last resort, so you MUST commit 110% to the fight if you wish to survive. People who are not confident don't do that. Just a little reality here.
     
    7point62 likes this.
  5. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,195
    3,160
    113
    I train out to 50 yrds with a handgun.

    To my knowledge there is no national central data base of the range of civilian or police shootings.

    There are independent dept stats kept but those are skewed numbers depending on the location of the dept, big city vs rural dept where no true average is the result.

    Except one. The one kept by the Bureau of Justice of the ranges of officer encounters where the officer died nationwide.
    Which is where the 3 yard 3 shot mantra comes from.

    JMO but training only 3 to 5 yrds is training to die while armed.

    The attacker picks the location, time, distance and type of attack. We have little to no influence on those areas, being by design defensive and behind the curve to start with.
    The attack can vary from a close range mugging, rape robbery, to business robbery, home invasion, attempt to kidnap, murder, to active shooter and everything in between.

    The ranges one may need to employ their handgun to survive can vary wildly.

    Depending on statistics, accurate or not ignores one fact.
    If a civilian, or even the average cop, finds him or her self depending on their firearm to defend themselves, that person has stepped WAY outside of the any statistics.

    JMO Worth what you paid for it.
     
    Trunk Monkey and TelstaR like this.
  6. TelstaR

    TelstaR Active Member

    186
    120
    43
    You say all sorts of things that I have yet to see qualified in any merited way. I would love to hear the science ( or intellectual qualification) behind how confidence as a state of being is necessary to win a fight. A person can lack confidence in achieving a goal and still accomplish the goal( it happens all the time). Emotional hunger is a state of being, Confidence is a state of being and Steadfastness is a state of being. All those things can help but none of them are necessary or required to win in my estimation. I argue that you can certainly win without them. A state of being never won a fight but a beneficial state of being can certainly help. I have lost plenty of fights that I just knew I would win and I have won fights that I knew I would lose.

    I would also like to see the science behind how 110% is required and not 92%.. how do you know that 92% isn't plenty adequate to overcome the enemy. Is my 92% the same measurable effort as someone elses 92%? My 100% effort may actually be the same as someone elses 51%. How are you measuring these efforts to begin with? If 100% is considered all the human effort that a person is capable of putting toward a task.. how do you then apply 10% more. I ask these things simply because you are speaking in seemingly absolute proclamations. ( Absolute, MUST, [is] Necessary)

    I may not be confident that I can outrun a grizzly, lion or honey badger but I guarantee you that I can muster 100% effort toward that goal. Its just silly to suggest that a state of being is required to achieve any of those things or that a state of being dictates what % of effort a person is capable of putting toward a task or will put toward the task. Does it help? sure.. it helps.
     
    Trunk Monkey and Ghost1958 like this.
  7. TelstaR

    TelstaR Active Member

    186
    120
    43
    Lets apply good ole common sense:

    I do not know of anyone or any training outfit that suggest that a person should ONLY train for the statistical 3-3-3 scenario. Unless it exists, the argument is rather mute.

    Just for giggles, lets say that a person was incredibly limited or incredibly lazy and only subscribed to the barest of minimalistic training. If that is the case, it would probably be a good idea to training for what is considered to be more common.

    I train out to 25 yards ( sometimes 33 yards), does that mean I cannot make a shot beyond those ranges? If someone trains out to 5 yards, does that mean they cant routinely make shots at 10 yards?

    That is probably a little dramatic. A person probably stands a pretty good chance of encountering any attacker within that distance. If it happens to be 7 yards or 10 yards, whats the big hubbub? I you train for 5 yards and suddenly have to make a 50 yard shot, that is a notable disparity. The difference between 5 yards and 10-15 yards.. is not ( in my opinion). That is assuming that the person has had a reasonable introduction to basic marksmanship.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  8. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,195
    3,160
    113
    Reasonable opinion. One I would have shared 15 yrs ago to a certain degree.

    As a civilian I've been fired on 3 times . None were less than 20 yards away 2 approx 40 the other more than that.

    In my experience, and admittedly surprize, when shooting with ex LE , , other folks I would have thought good for at least a 15 yrd shot to com of a human size target , most could not hit COM more than 2 out of 10 rds at 10 yards.
    Some of these people are on our church security team. And had to be worked with a great deal to make a 25 yrd shot.

    Most folks dont shoot or hang on gun forums.
    If they do shoot occasionally it's at distances of 7 yards because that is what they " heard " all attacks happen at.

    So respectfully , IMO and experience no.
    If you normally shoot at 7 yards you won't make a 20 yard shot except by sheer luck
    If, however you train or practice out to say 30 yrds and can routinely hit com , the closer ranges are easier and 7 yards is a cakewalk even at maximum rate of draw to fire.

    I live in ky. Probably as gun cultured as any state in the nation. And yep Grannies around here will turn your head into a canoe if you break in on them. But they were raised on guns, shot guns most of their young life. And shooting at something at 7 yrds would have got them whipped for wasting a bullet or shell instead of throwing a rock.

    JMO but no one doesnt need professional training to defend themselves. But they do need to know how to shoot a gun and hit a human farther away than they could hit them with a fly rod.

    I personally stretch to 50 because , though I'm not active because of my wifes health right now, I'm presently on our church security team. And the maximum range shot inside the building is 50 yards..

    And I'm lucky that I can shoot those distances in my back yard whenever I want.

    As I said just my opinion based on experience and observation over time.
     
  9. TelstaR

    TelstaR Active Member

    186
    120
    43
    The experiences of one individual is not what changes conventional wisdom and conventional wisdom is not derived from any one source. Conventional wisdom is something that is developed over time via long standing accepted and repeated truths.

    Your life experience my govern you.. there is certainly nothing wrong with that. At the same time, it does not negate long standing promulgated beliefs within the same subject matter.

    really? I think most normal people could manage to make a 20 yards shot with no training at all. My wife could hit a b27 target all over its torso ( at 21 yards ) and never fired a gun in her life. I simply stood by to make sure that she didn't do anything risky or dangerous. All she did was put the front post on the target and fire in single action. I am not saying that she would pass quals but static shots at a static target is not rocket science. She hates guns but wanted to shoot the revolver so that she would know how to do it and know that she could do it. She was much better after 15 minutes of instruction and 50 more rounds but she lost interest after that.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
  10. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    3,195
    3,160
    113
    True to a point.
    But we aren't discussing practicing to be able to put holes all over a gigantic paper target .
    At least that's not my understanding of the thread.
    In the end game as I understand the thread, practicing was to be able to defend oneself at practical ranges with a firearm against another human as best we can.

    My point , poorly made as usual, is that there is no more way to know what distance one may need to be accurate at than there is to know if , when, where, how ,and at what range a life threatening situation will arise.

    And with that I will respectfully bow to more learned and smarter folks than myself.:D
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
    Mister Dave likes this.
  11. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,051
    3,041
    113
    'Qualified in any merit way'????:rolleyes: Over 45 years in LE and 30+ years as an instructor/trainer, but I don't fit the 'overly civilized, overly educated, idealistic idiot' mold that seem to be so prevalent in this country today therefore I am not 'qualified' to state what is obvious to all of us who have not lost all concept of reality.:rolleyes: This is typical of those who think that the only 'qualified' people are those with a lot of 'titles/letters' behind their name.:( If there is not a 'link' or other 'data/study' from an 'egg head' it is not valid.:( I truly feel sorry for you 'young man'!!!:( NO FORMAL EDUCATION WILL EVER GIVE YOU MORE WISDOM OR KNOWLEDGE THAN REAL LIFE IT'S SELF!:)
     
  12. TelstaR

    TelstaR Active Member

    186
    120
    43
    I am not talking about what expereince you may or may not have. I am simply talking about what you say and how you say it. I am not one of those people who want to see graphs and stats.

    Qualifying an assertion can be something as easy as offering insite into the conceptualness, mental process, origin and things that support basic principals. Qualification or merit can also be developed from answering questions or successfully overcoming a debate counterpoint.

    When I say merited, I simply mean that it seems convincing, widely accepted or proven.

    You may very well be 100% correct in everything you say. I am simply saying that you have not convince me of it. Thats just me and I am certainly nothing special.

    I think that you and I have come to an impasse regarding this whole "confidence" thing. Honestly, its not all that important. I thank you for the discussion but I am not very motivated to continue the debate. No need to stagnate the topic.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2020
  13. Nmwabbit

    Nmwabbit Active Member

    278
    159
    43
    sure the conclusion to be reached was the steel targets improved the shooters scores but perhaps rather the consistent practice the shooters engaged in over the "year"?

    course, practice oversight in corrections to shooter form as well as equipment & sight adjustments done over the year probably didn't hurt the shooter's accuracy either.

    just saying before there is a run to buy out steel targets across the nation.
     
  14. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,051
    3,041
    113
    Thank you! My goal is not to 'convince' you but to get the right information out to MANY people who simply 'read only'. There is a lot of people who are looking for information/advise on the net about CC/SD and I give them that. It is up to them to use it or not. I just got tired of seeing people get hurt by denying reality and listening to bad advise when it come to surviving a criminal's attack. :)
     
  15. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    7,519
    1,159
    113
    I miss my nearby shooting pit in the State Forrest. It is shut down due to logging, and rumor is, they won’t reopen it to shooting after the logging is done. I would do drills between 3 yards and 50. Most were technically unknown distance between 7-15 yds.

    the folks I’ve known who employed a handgun in a defensive situation, including my own encounter, were at contact distance, ambush attacks.

    the likelihood of me needing a “long” shot is limited, but not out of the question. Walking trails near my home could put me in contact with mountain lions, but even they tend to not let you know they are there, until they are attacking.

    urban settings seem more likely to be at or near contact distance.

    I still test my ability to make distance shots though, because you just never know.
     
    7point62 likes this.
  16. 7.62 Man

    7.62 Man Active Member

    972
    116
    43
    The distance for training with a pistol should be the distance of an argument.
    Because that's how most shootings start is an argument, then a push or a swung fist. So just a step back from a push or a dodge from a swing is where I start my training.
    I see most of them at the range practicing 20 to 40 yds. away. That's great if you are hunting but defensive shots are much closer.
    I'm not saying that long defensive shot are not possible just not the norm.
    It's been said the pistol is only to hold them off long enough to get my rifle. LOL
     
    JimRau and JRDallas like this.
  17. TelstaR

    TelstaR Active Member

    186
    120
    43
    I do not believe that a push or a swung fist necessarily warrants the use of a firearm. I dont believe that would be my training construct. I do agree that most shootings are going to occur in rather close proximity.
     
  18. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    7,051
    3,041
    113
    BINGO!:) That is the point I am trying to get across. It don't mean that the 'incident' starts with an altercation involving 'pushing and shoving', BUT MOST criminals do attack their victims at VERY CLOSE RANGE. They try and 'ambush' them when possible, so that is why I teach people to deal with the 'up close' attack's FIRST. :) That is why my basic class is more of a 'survival' class than a 'marksmanship' class. I base this on my real world experience, not 'others' observations. :)
     
    7.62 Man likes this.
  19. 7.62 Man

    7.62 Man Active Member

    972
    116
    43
    I agree that a push or a swung fist doesn't warrants the use of a firearm. But from that step back is where you judge the situation. If the perp starts digging in a coat pocket then maybe I would need to start to reach for my carry weapon. A split second is all it takes to be dead or alive.
     
  20. Maineiak

    Maineiak Active Member

    105
    81
    28
    For me it makes sense to train with a pistol out to 50 yards, it makes you a better shot, and you never know, you might have to make a shot at that range in a self defense situation. Several people have been attacked by fox and coyote, or what about a wild or aggressive dog? If you can hit a target at 50 yards you will have a better chance of hitting a smaller target at 25 yards or less IMHO.