Carbine vs handgun

[GJM]

Over the last day or so, in light of current events, Mr_White and I have been discussing the relative effectiveness of a handgun vs a carbine in an active shooter/terrorist situation. Not discussing the difference in terminal ballistics, but rather how quickly can you put hits on a target with a handgun vs a carbine. He did some testing in a class, and this afternoon my wife and I got some data when we ran a Colt 9mm AR on the same targets arrays we shot in a regular handgun session.

I am interested in opinions on how folks think a service pistol stacks up against a carbine, in terms of placing hits, in the distance envelope attacks happened in Paris and CA?

[Luke]

Me and a buddy were talking about this today. One thing that I think a carbine offers is distance. Purely speaking of a mass shooting type thing. That's about the only scenario I can come up with being a civilian to justify action from a distance. If your in a parking lot leaving commiemart and see ala bagdadi the white supremacist mowing folks down you could grab your trunk gun and put him down from farther range than a pistol/you could hit with a high probability.


This is all super way out there and about as far as I've been into Timmyville.

[MVS]

No contest for me, I can get more hits on target with better accuracy in the same time frame with a carbine. Reloads are a little slower, but that is something more practice would fix.

[Malamute]

A carbine would be much easier to shoot well under stress. The main factor is what you'll have with you the moment it all happens.

[Lomshek]

Still kind of hard to comfortably wear an AR IWB much less AIWB. Chances are for any of us civvies it's gonna be run what you brung without armoring up in the parking lot.

ETA - I imagine the hit speed depends on the level of practice with each (duh). I spend a lot more time shooting my pistol and at "CQB" distances am able to put quicker, more accurate multiple rounds on multiple targets with a service handgun than an AR. My AR's just a plain old DD M7LW with a 1-4 scope so not exactly a gamer set up with a comp that might help.

[johnson]

I've never done any formal testing but would think that anything shouldered would give you faster precise hits on target the farther you go out.

edit: It would be nice to have a KEL-TEC SUB-2000 in the trunk/backpack if you carried a Glock.

[Kyle Reese]

Unless you're carrying a long gun during the course of your daily routine, the chances are you'll have to fight with what you brought to any sort of active shooter / in extremis situation. As such, I predicate the bulk of my training on the handgun, since it's with my every day.

[Malamute]

I am interested in opinions on how folks think a service pistol stacks up against a carbine, in terms of placing hits, in the distance envelope attacks happened in Paris and CA?

An interesting point regarding Paris, the 3 Colombian Cartel guys that were hanging out in a cafe that was hosed down with AK fire returned fire and killed the shooters with their pistols. They probably wouldnt have had a chance to retrieve long guns even if parked on the street 30 feet away. Not that I have a problem with keeping long guns in the car, but I figure the odds are that whatever you have on you is what you get to try to solve the problem at hand.

ETA Dang I type slow,...

[LSP552]

Without a doubt, I'm faster and more accurate with a carbine at the ready than a pistol. This increases with the distance and stress involved. I don't think you will find many people who would purposely pick a handgun to fight with outside of some specialized environments that don't fit this discussion.

Bad guys (and gals) don't stand still, they move; and you may need to also. I've done enough moving target and force on force work to know I'd much prefer to fight with a carbine. The square range and static targets won't provide an accurate comparison. Start working force on force and you will have a different picture.

Having said that, I don't walk around with a carbine strapped across my chest and one in the trunk is probably going to be worthless. IMO, the keys are being situationally aware, mentally prepared, and skilled with what you routinely carry. The ability to get hits at greater than ATM distance is important.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I think a carbine offers a massive advantage but now that I'm experimenting with the particular red dot/MOS glock combo I'm using, I feel that the gap has narrowed a little.

But man, it's a pretty significant gap.

[David S.]

It seems pretty self-evident that a person (presumably not on-duty LEO, non-MIL) would be more effective with a carbine, and (b) unlikely to have access to a carbine during a terrorist attack.

As someone who has a fair amount (very modest by P-F standards) of formal pistol training and is aware of the inadequacy of his purely informal carbine training, I'd take a carbine all day long. Not sure why this is even a question....

I'm curious, where are you going with this?

[45dotACP]

I was just watching Ben Stoeger's Podcast with new USPSA president Foley and they discussed a USPSA pistol caliber carbine division. I'm quite interested in it to say the least.

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[GJM]

I should have said this in my initial post -- this wasn't so much which you would pick, since that is obviously a long gun to me, but rather how would a trained good guy do with a pistol against the bad guy with long gun. Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

[Chuck Haggard]

The Miami/FBI fight is an example of bringing a carbine to a pistol fight.

Bringing a carbine or shotgun to a pistol fight is often like bringing a chainsaw to a knife fight. It's orders of magnitude more effective. It's probably good that guys like Alvin York didn't let that fact dissuade them though.

[Erick Gelhaus]

An interesting point regarding Paris, the 3 Colombian Cartel guys that were hanging out in a cafe that was hosed down with AK fire returned fire and killed the shooters with their pistols.

Can you point me to a source for that info? I would appreciate it.

I'll echo those who agree that a carbine would be more effective, but that since you aren't likely to have it on you it is going to be a pistol problem.

[LSP552]

I should have said this in my initial post -- this wasn't so much which you would pick, since that is obviously a long gun to me, but rather how would a trained good guy do with a pistol against the bad guy with long gun. Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

Someone who keeps a cool head, and can shoot, can certainly surprise the shit out of someone who isn't expecting trouble. You increase your odds by being aware of what's happening around you. The environment, number of attackers and distance will all impact your tactics.

[Malamute]

I should have said this in my initial post -- this wasn't so much which you would pick, since that is obviously a long gun to me, but rather how would a trained good guy do with a pistol against the bad guy with long gun. Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

Those that focus on the immediate problem, and dont let themselves get psyched out about it seem to do OK in general.

Doing more distance practice is probably a useful step to reduce the perceived advantage of the long gun. Another thing I think people can psych themselves out about.

[Malamute]

Someone who keeps a cool head, and can shoot, can certainly surprise the shit out of someone who isn't expecting trouble. You increase your odds by being aware of what's happening around you. The environment, number of attackers and distance will all impact your tactics.

This seems to be important.

[JSGlock34]

The Miami/FBI fight is an example of bringing a carbine to a pistol fight.

North Hollywood is another.


Bringing a carbine or shotgun to a pistol fight is often like bringing a chainsaw to a knife fight. It's orders of magnitude more effective. It's probably good that guys like Alvin York didn't let that fact dissuade them though.

Well, the reason those Germans started their bayonet charge was because York had been successfully picking them off with his M1917...

[BehindBlueI's]

I should have said this in my initial post -- this wasn't so much which you would pick, since that is obviously a long gun to me, but rather how would a trained good guy do with a pistol against the bad guy with long gun. Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

Surprise, effective use of cover, use of distraction and numbers, etc. There's plenty of examples of pistol packing LEOs and others taking down someone armed with a long gun. I've been trying to work in some 75y+ pistol shooting into each range session now. I have a carbine in my trunk, but sometimes the trunk might as well be a million miles away.

[BehindBlueI's]

Someone who keeps a cool head, and can shoot, can certainly surprise the shit out of someone who isn't expecting trouble.

This guy was the reason I started working in 75y+ distances into my training routinely:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/06/austin-cop-sure-shot-stopped-crazed-gunman/

312' with a handgun, one handed, while holding horse reins with the other hand? Come the eff on, man, you're making the rest of us look like slugs!

[JSGlock34]

Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

Tactics are so situational, so it is hard to talk in absolutes...but I keep thinking 'proximity negates skill' when I read this.

[Malamute]

Can you point me to a source for that info? I would appreciate it.

I'll echo those who agree that a carbine would be more effective, but that since you aren't likely to have it on you it is going to be a pistol problem.

This is one place I saw it. Theres a number of references in a google search, some being in spanish.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?176838-3-cartel-operators-killed-two-of-the-ISIS-attackers-in-Paris

In looking more, it may be incorrect info, but was making the rounds online for a while. Apologies for spreading the incorrect story. It seems to have started with Russian media somehow.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I should have said this in my initial post -- this wasn't so much which you would pick, since that is obviously a long gun to me, but rather how would a trained good guy do with a pistol against the bad guy with long gun. Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

I think about this a lot, and I'll briefly explain why: being a big guy with a major in keeping my eyes open to avoid trouble and a minor in bar brawls, my part of Canada is basically non-threatening to me unless I specifically choose to make it otherwise. I could easily go my whole adult life here and never feel at risk of violent crime (young men don't count, they're as punchy as boxers, or even NHL 4th line defencemen).

Anyway the point is, I basically never have to worry about a mugging or robbery. That's not HuffPo propaganda, that's a realistic assessment by a guy who's intentionally exposed himself to a bunch of pretty harsh sketchiness and trained a lot to cope with situations that do crop up elsewhere. If you want to avoid plain-jane criminal violence here, that's really easy, 99.99% of the time. Conceivably you could be mistaken for someone running a grow op, or if you looked right, for a rival gangster. But that's about it for random violent crime.


The one thing that could happen is a terrorist attack, because that could happen wherever. Tyrifjorden. Paris. San Bernadino. It's unlikely but possible. And in that case, at best, it would occur somewhere that I could immediately leave. At worst, somewhere I couldn't leave.

In between is the unlikely possibility that I'm on my way to a gunsmith or range, and so I have a gun in a case in a bag. According to Canadian law, that'd be legal assuming I was taking a reasonably direct route to the gunsmith etc.

There's no circumstance in which I'd be hauling a long gun in anything other than a car, at least not that I can think of.

But potentially I'd be heading to an in-town range or gun shop with a handgun cased up in a messenger bag, say. That would be legal. We're pretty far out on the obscurity scale here, but it's possible.

Given those circumstances: place I can't leave, terrorists with long guns, me with a handgun cased up in a bag that I can access on account of cover or concealment or whatever, what's my take?


I'd hope the gun had a red dot, because I'd want to engage at distance if at all. Yes, long guns are more effective at distance. Untrained shooters are not, though.

I'd hope that I'd been practising at distance with that gun

I'd hope that a way out turned up before the shooting started

I'd hope that I could plan the first shot carefully, because man, after that instant, I bet things would go pretty sideways


Given some of the above, I figure I could do as well as you'd expect, worse than you'd hope, and better than you'd fear.

[LSP552]

Tactics are so situational, so it is hard to talk in absolutes...but I keep thinking 'proximity negates skill' when I read this.

With pistols again rifles, proximity reduces advantage. "Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik. The odds will be even."
- Captain Spock

[GJM]

Hopefully Gabe will share his "data" from the other night.

I will post more on our two experiments tomorrow, but in one that involved targets at 10, 12 and 14 yards, it was pretty close between carbine and pistol. On three eight inch steel targets at 30-35 yards, the carbine trounced the pistol.

[Malamute]

I wonder what 40 yards, mostly untrained carbine operator against decent pistol shot would turn up?

[okie john]

Can you point me to a source for that info? I would appreciate it.

Same here.


Okie John

[JHC]

Hopefully Gabe will share his "data" from the other night.

I will post more on our two experiments tomorrow, but in one that involved targets at 10, 12 and 14 yards, it was pretty close between carbine and pistol. On three eight inch steel targets at 30-35 yards, the carbine trounced the pistol.

With no SBR or AR pistl, a few months ago I set up my G31 w/ 22 round mag in a handy bag that is wicked accurate in the 25-50 yd zone.

[scw2]

I think John Murphy has a course called pistol vs rifle. Does anyone know of someone that's taken that course?

[okie john]

I should have said this in my initial post -- this wasn't so much which you would pick, since that is obviously a long gun to me, but rather how would a trained good guy do with a pistol against the bad guy with long gun. Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

I get the impression that suicidal jihadis are taught less about sight alignment and trigger control than they are about putting the selector lever in the first position and hosing down crowds of cowering infidels.

I got to fool around quite a bit with unsighted, hand-held full-auto fire when I was in the Army. My team mates and I found out quickly that it's OK against a single target or massed individual targets up close, but that it gets exponentially less effective as distance increases. With that in mind, I think that a trained pistol shooter might be able to do good work IF he keeps his wits about him AND if the long-gunner has NOT had any real marksmanship training AND is on Full Auto. If the bad guy is on semi, then it's a very different ball game because he has at least some idea of what he's doing.

But if the bad guy is spraying and praying, then the hand-gunner might be safer at the far edges of effective pistol range (40-75m) than if he were within 20m, and closing the distance could increase the danger of the bad guy getting a lucky hit.


Okie John

[Clobbersaurus]

My take:

Untrained rifle guy vs untrained pistol guy = bad day for the pistol guy.
Untrained rifle guy vs trained pistol guy = Even-Steven.
Untrained rifle guy vs thoroughly trained pistol guy = bad day for rifle guy.

Trained rifle guy vs untrained pistol guy = really bad day for the pistol guy.
Trained rifle guy vs trained pistol guy = bad day for pistol guy.
Trained rifle guy vs thoroughly trained pistol guy = Even-Steven.

Thoroughly trained rifle guy vs untrained pistol guy = really bad day for pistol guy.
Thoroughly trained rifle guy vs trained pistol guy = really bad day for pistol guy.
Thoroughly trained rifle guy vs thoroughly trained pistol guy = bad day for pistol guy.

Trained = guy who has taken a course or two and trains semi regularly.
Thoroughly trained = has taken numerous courses and trains regularly.

[Stone]

I should have said this in my initial post -- this wasn't so much which you would pick, since that is obviously a long gun to me, but rather how would a trained good guy do with a pistol against the bad guy with long gun. Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

Training ,training and more training. Train for this scenario. Cover, I mean hard cover. Behind a concrete wall, engine block because that AR is going to punch through most things. Situational awareness is going to be key. If the bullets are flying already flanking them and taking a head shot would be the way to go. A head on engagement would probably be suicide. Keeping cool, most people don't know how to react in these situations because they have never been in one. Adrenaline will be going mach 2 and controlling the fear is key. Always leave yourself an out, look for the exits. Running from a guy with an AR spraying bullets all over the place and hell bent on killing people doesn't make you a coward. Getting yourself to a good position and wait for them to reload and then advance, may just work. I highly doubt they are doing 3 second reloads.

[Lester Polfus]

While it is certainly much easier to get hits with a carbine, it is still possible to shoot one very badly. Most of us on here are "above average" to "way above average" shooters, and probably associate with the same, so its easy to forget what lousy shots most people are. I live a few miles from a popular Cleeti blasting range, and on my way to a more secluded shooting spot, I often pause and watch people shoot their AR-15's very poorly.

Last time I received any formal schooling on domestic active shooters, many of them were "obsessed with weapons" but had very little real ability to use them well. Sitting at home obsessively loading and unloading your AK drums while muttering about the assholes at work isn't the same thing as training.

Likewise, while the media breathlessly talks about "trained terrorists," unless something has changed since I was in the loop, most of their training actually revolves around "indoctrination," geared more towards making these shitbirds willing to blow themselves up. Sure they learn how to make pipe bombs, which your average high school kid learns off the internet, and how to shoot an AK in some random direction, but it's not like they are going to the Jihadi version of Midsouth Shooting School. One thing I've noticed about third world armies is what they want out of their troops isn't competency, it's loyalty, and the thought of having a bunch of really highly trained guys running around makes them more than a little nervous. I'm sure that goes for these terrorist leaders too, if you've got a guy who is dumbass enough to go on a suicide mission, you don't need or want him to be all that GOOD at anything.

Also, fundamentally, these people are chickenshits. While I never responded to an active shooter, I've lost count of the number of people who were impressed by their own sheer badassery when it came to terrorizing people weaker than them, only to have their shit turn to water when they ran into somebody who actually had a pair of balls.

So yeah, the platforms matter, and pistol v. rifle is bad juju if you are holding the pistol, but skill counts for a bunch, and so does something that doesn't get talked about much these days: courage.

Tactically, probably the best way to eat this shit sandwich would be to use maneuver to get into a place where you could put around in the back of the shooters head while he or she is fixated on mowing down nuns and orphans.

Personally, my biggest mitigation against this sort of thing is I live up on a mountain and don't go into town very much. When we do, we avoid shopping malls and the like, mostly because we just don't like them. That's not a reality for everybody though.

As we continue our post-baby recover, I'm making more time to train, and prioritizing longer range shooting, exactly because of this sort of thing.

[The Apprentice]

Carbine definately easier to shoot but heres my problem its impractical for use as a armed civilian. Realistically it is going to remain in a somewhat static position i.e. a trunk. Which mean in an active shooter type situation you would have to retrive it. Now how will this be perceived by others shoots fired and then I see someone running in with an ar-15 or ak my go to responce would be that this isnt right people dont run around with long guns. I think the risk of being mistaken as an attacker is to high in situations like this. Persons are smart people are dumb large groups of panicing people are stupid. If having a carbine in the trunk makes you feel better by all means go for it.

[The Apprentice]

I should have said this in my initial post -- this wasn't so much which you would pick, since that is obviously a long gun to me, but rather how would a trained good guy do with a pistol against the bad guy with long gun. Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

Sorry missed this. I dont like my odd and unless it is a direct threat on me and mine its a tactical retreat unless I have the drop on them. I would do all I can to help those around me but I'm not running in to the situation to be the hero. I think practicing at longer ranges such as 50 yard would definately up your odds a lot as well but you are at a big disadvantage. That carbine is more effective at range and will penetrate cover a lot better than any handgun round.

[dkv]

Unless you're carrying a long gun during the course of your daily routine, the chances are you'll have to fight with what you brought to any sort of active shooter / in extremis situation. As such, I predicate the bulk of my training on the handgun, since it's with my every day.

Thank you for articulating this "obviousism." I've been spending all of my range time with rifles recently.

[dkv]

I am interested in opinions on how folks think a service pistol stacks up against a carbine, in terms of placing hits, in the distance envelope attacks happened in Paris and CA?

How much does an optic-equipped pistol change the balance in the 20-50-100 meter engagement (if that is distance in consideration)?

[Hambo]

We shot the same qualification course with M4s and MP5s. At distance it is much easier for me to get repetitive A zone hits with a subgun/carbine than a pistol.

At close range there is no advantage save increased ammo capacity and there are a few potential problems.

As I said in the San Berdoo thread, these guys are never well trained. The main advantage they have is surprise and numbers. If you aren't the first guy hit and it's one on one I'd say it's an even fight, maybe leaning toward you if you disrupt their OODA loop. If 3-4 of them triangulate on you, not so much. If you have a trained, armed friend/spouse with you, you increase the odds in your favor. If you kill the first guy, you win a free long gun upgrade.

[41magfan]

The distance of the engagement obviously plays into any hypothetical comparison, but I think it's an undeniable fact that long-guns (in almost every guise) are superior weapons in all but the closest encounters ... all things being equal. As previously stated, long-guns aren't weapons of convenience so their use isn't very relevant to the defensive scenarios most citizens would likely encounter outside of their home or business.

I can say this with some certainty, I've seen some pretty unskilled users - armed with long-guns - absolutely dominate their opponent(s) that were only armed with handguns. Anyone that encounters an opponent so armed is a fool if he doesn't recognize the disparity in the ability to project force.

[Kevin B.]

I should have said this in my initial post -- this wasn't so much which you would pick, since that is obviously a long gun to me, but rather how would a trained good guy do with a pistol against the bad guy with long gun. Also, are there things you could do to improve your odds with a pistol against a rifle, an example being to close with the shooter to take away some of the distance advantage of the long gun.

I had the misfortune (through my own stupidity) of being a partipant in a pistol (G19) v. rifle (AK-47). I would consider myself reasonably well-trained and my opponent to be untrained. Distance involved was approximately 100 yards. In the end, it was a draw.

What really made the difference was my ability to place reasonably accurate fire on his position, in return. My training program at the time included a significant amount of shooting at 50 yards plus and it paid off.

Distance was my friend. It exploited his lack of training and allowed me to put my superior training to work to close the capability cap between my pistol and his rifle.

Closing the distance was not really a viable option for me. However, doing so really would have put me at a significant disadvantage.

[okie john]

The distance of the engagement obviously plays into any hypothetical comparison, but I think it's an undeniable fact that long-guns (in almost every guise) are superior weapons in all but the closest encounters ... all things being equal. As previously stated, long-guns aren't weapons of convenience so their use isn't very relevant to the defensive scenarios most citizens would likely encounter outside of their home or business.

I can say this with some certainty, I've seen some pretty unskilled users - armed with long-guns - absolutely dominate their opponent(s) that were only armed with handguns. Anyone that encounters an opponent so armed is a fool if he doesn't recognize the disparity in the ability to project force.

This. The whole issue falls into the ticket-to-Valhalla category, but if you've gotta go, then you might as well go in style.


Okie John

[TGS]

We shot the same qualification course with M4s and MP5s. At distance it is much easier for me to get repetitive A zone hits with a subgun/carbine than a pistol.

At close range there is no advantage save increased ammo capacity and there are a few potential problems.


What are you considering "close range" with this statement? I ask, because there's more than one advantage that a long gun has over handguns even at 3-7 yards.

That's a pretty wild statement to make given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

How much does an optic-equipped pistol change the balance in the 20-50-100 meter engagement (if that is distance in consideration)?

For me personally, at 20m it's a bit of an advantage but not much.

At 50m it's a huge advantage.

At 100m it's night and day. With irons I'd be very hesitant to make a 100m shot on a hostile human that wasn't aware of my presence, because I'd rather keep the surprise factor than risk missing, which I could easily do at that range.

With the optic I've been using, I wouldn't hesitate at all to make that shot because I'd be extremely confident that the first shot would be a debilitating hit.

[John Hearne]

You would have to be a pretty bad ass hand with a pistol to even make this close unless your opponent really sucks. Beyond 5 yards, I am hard pressed to think of a situation where I couldn't hit faster and better with the carbine.

I know you wanted to discount terminal ballistics - the logical progression of "all service calibers are the same" - but what about the psychological effects. The agent in the FBI Miami shooting described "the psychologically devastating" effect of taking 5.56 fire when armed with a pistol.

Since a number of us have been to Rogers, what does Bill do with the tests for short range rifle versus pistol? Bill obviously thinks the rifle is easier because the carbine tests are harder and include shooting on the move. After chasing those damn plates all day with a pistol, it was an absolute joy to smack them with that 9mm carbine.

FWIW, the best I shot with a pistol was 106/125 (84.8%) or a high intermediate score. I was happy with that 106 because it was the best I could shoot - that was my flawless performance level. I was pissed at my carbine test performance because I almost cleaned it every time I shot it, missing clean for stupid mistakes, not raw ability. I repeatedly shot 73/75 (97.3%) with far less rifle training than pistol training at the time I took the course.

[Hambo]

What are you considering "close range" with this statement? I ask, because there's more than one advantage that a long gun has over handguns even at 3-7 yards.

That's a pretty wild statement to make given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The OP referenced a 9mm Colt carbine, so I was thinking specifically of my experience with subguns. There was no ballistic advantage to them. In fact, for reasons never explained, we ran hotter 9mm in handguns than subguns. At housing project apartment distances I could shoot my pistol as well as the HK. At some point I started wondering if the 7 pound/30 round HK was worth it or if a second pistol would be a better idea.

[Gray222]

This. The whole issue falls into the ticket-to-Valhalla category, but if you've gotta go, then you might as well go in style.


Okie John

There are plenty of ways to go, and we all have a ticket, its up to us which table we end up sitting at.

[Nephrology]

In tight quarters and at close distances I can see a handgun having an advantage over a carbine (unless it's a handy SBR). That said, as a regular old civilian, I invest far more time/money/practice/etc with my handguns. They are the guns I will have with me if the proverbial balloon ever goes up.

[nwhpfan]

In many cases I can be faster accurate with a handgun over a rifle. 1:, I practice 10x with handgun vs. a rifle so that of course has a lot to do with it. From 25 yards, standing and a retention duty holster I can....most of the time put 2 rounds in the A zone in under 2 seconds. Just "going for tan" I can cut that by a couple tenths. For me it is much easier to index a handgun on a target then refine the aim than it is for me to do the same with a rifle. I suppose the equivalent to a holstered pistol is slung, not touching, hands at sides...again, I'm just able to things much quicker with a handgun; perhaps with training. But I would like to see a proficient rifaliero vs. a proficient pistolero at 25 yards...holstered vs. slung hands off weapon and see who is faster on target. I have a suspicion given comparable skill the handgun will be faster. At some point distance becomes a significant disadvantage to the pistol.

[GJM]

You would have to be a pretty bad ass hand with a pistol to even make this close unless your opponent really sucks. Beyond 5 yards, I am hard pressed to think of a situation where I couldn't hit faster and better with the carbine.

I know you wanted to discount terminal ballistics - the logical progression of "all service calibers are the same" - but what about the psychological effects. The agent in the FBI Miami shooting described "the psychologically devastating" effect of taking 5.56 fire when armed with a pistol.

Since a number of us have been to Rogers, what does Bill do with the tests for short range rifle versus pistol? Bill obviously thinks the rifle is easier because the carbine tests are harder and include shooting on the move. After chasing those damn plates all day with a pistol, it was an absolute joy to smack them with that 9mm carbine.

FWIW, the best I shot with a pistol was 106/125 (84.8%) or a high intermediate score. I was happy with that 106 because it was the best I could shoot - that was my flawless performance level. I was pissed at my carbine test performance because I almost cleaned it every time I shot it, missing clean for stupid mistakes, not raw ability. I repeatedly shot 73/75 (97.3%) with far less rifle training than pistol training at the time I took the course.


The OP referenced a 9mm Colt carbine, so I was thinking specifically of my experience with subguns. There was no ballistic advantage to them. In fact, for reasons never explained, we ran hotter 9mm in handguns than subguns. At housing project apartment distances I could shoot my pistol as well as the HK. At some point I started wondering if the 7 pound/30 round HK was worth it or if a second pistol would be a better idea.

1) Overall, I am not discounting at all the difference in terminal ballistics between rifle and pistol cartridges. I am the guy who carries a USP 45 with .45 Super ammo in AK, backed up with a Benelli with Brenneke slugs, or a Guide Gun with Garrett ammo. Discounting the difference in terminal ballistics here, purely to focus on the technical shooting problem of placing hits on target.

2) The idea for this thread came out of several discussions with Gabe on your chances, if you encountered a terrorist/active shooter situation. Most of us don't walk around with our carbines, so that means your concealed handgun is likely what you have to try to solve the problem.

3) What I was hoping for was to have some theoretical discussion, hear about actual experiences like Kevin B posted on, and then for folks to run some drills to try to quantify the technical shooting delta (not terminal ballistics difference) between the carbine your terrorist is likely to have, and the handgun, you are likely to have.

4) The reason for the Colt 9mm AR, was so we could shoot steel targets at pistol distances, and not tear up the steel. I feel like the 5.56 AR cycles faster for me than the 9mm AR, but I don't think the differences are likely to be significant in this testing.

5) Here is test one that we did. We set up three paper targets at 10, 12 and 14 yards. A Pistol Forum paper target at 10 and two IPSC cardboard targets at 12 and 14 yards. The drill was to draw the pistol and place two body shots on the eight inch circle, and then two head shots on each cardboard IPSC target. With the pistol, we settled on a 4.5 second par time for a clean run, based on several runs by my wife and me. My first run with the 9mm AR was 2.9 seconds clean, and my second run was also right at 2.9. My wife was 5.5 seconds on run one and right at 5 seconds on run 2 with the carbine. So, both slower than her pistol runs. (As a comp, she has E tickets in rifle and carbine from Gunsite, and shot a 114 and 115 with the pistol on the Rogers School test, last time she was there in April.) One difference was the AR started from the low ready and the pistol from the holster, so that obviously benefitted the AR.

6) Test two was to hit three eight inch steel plates, with one at 30 yards and the other two at 35 yards. With the pistol, we settled on a par time of six seconds, again based on multiple runs. It took a lot of concentration to do that consistently with the pistol. With the carbine, my best runs were at 2.0 seconds, and I was consistently under 3.0 seconds. My wife didn't shoot that one as it was getting late, and she still wanted to shoot her pistol.

We hope to drag a carbine out with us over upcoming range sessions and gather more data. Hope to work in the (D)AUG and AR pistol in .300 bulk.

[Lomshek]

In many cases I can be faster accurate with a handgun over a rifle. 1:, I practice 10x with handgun vs. a rifle so that of course has a lot to do with it. From 25 yards, standing and a retention duty holster I can....most of the time put 2 rounds in the A zone in under 2 seconds. Just "going for tan" I can cut that by a couple tenths.
For me it is much easier to index a handgun on a target then refine the aim than it is for me to do the same with a rifle.
I suppose the equivalent to a holstered pistol is slung, not touching, hands at sides...again, I'm just able to things much quicker with a handgun; perhaps with training. But I would like to see a proficient rifaliero vs. a proficient pistolero at 25 yards...holstered vs. slung hands off weapon and see who is faster on target. I have a suspicion given comparable skill the handgun will be faster. At some point distance becomes a significant disadvantage to the pistol.

This is exactly the same with me (except that two second 25 yard thing!). I imagine the quicker index I've experienced with a handgun comes from the lower mass and less mass further away from me (barrel) so that I can swing a handgun onto target faster and stop on target easier with less chance of overshooting my target.

I'd have to play with a timer some to retest that but I'd bet as I get toward 50 yards the rifle's superior accuracy starts to beat the handgun for target acquisition and transition. I don't have an SBR so maybe that shorter barrel would help speed things up for the rifle.

For power, capacity and accuracy a rifle wins every time.

For my moderately trained self at across the room distances or less I'd take a handgun for the simple fact that I can make more hits quicker with a handgun (which is what I'll have on me anyway). I'd imagine someone who uses a rifle as a duty weapon and trains with it more would prefer the rifle.

[Lomshek]

Here is test one that we did. We set up three paper targets at 10, 12 and 14 yards. A Pistol Forum paper target at 10 and two IPSC cardboard targets at 12 and 14 yards. The drill was to draw the pistol and place two body shots on the eight inch circle, and then two head shots on each cardboard IPSC target. With the pistol, we settled on a 4.5 second par time for a clean run, based on several runs by my wife and me. My first run with the 9mm AR was 2.9 seconds clean, and my second run was also right at 2.9. My wife was 5.5 seconds on run one and right at 5 seconds on run 2 with the carbine. So, both slower than her pistol runs. (As a comp, she has E tickets in rifle and carbine from Gunsite, and shot a 114 and 115 with the pistol on the Rogers School test, last time she was there in April.) One difference was the AR started from the low ready and the pistol from the holster, so that obviously benefitted the AR.

Test two was to hit three eight inch steel plates, with one at 30 yards and the other two at 35 yards. With the pistol, we settled on a par time of six seconds, again based on multiple runs. It took a lot of concentration to do that consistently with the pistol. With the carbine, my best runs were at 2.0 seconds, and I was consistently under 3.0 seconds. My wife didn't shoot that one as it was getting late, and she still wanted to shoot her pistol.


Were the rifles and handguns set up similarly for sights (irons or optics)?

[GLB]

This is a good and timely subject. The rifle is the tool I would want for ending a fight. However where is that rifle when you need it? Most armed Citizen will have the handgun with them and that will be the primary weapon to deal with the threat (Cops included) Prior to the most resent terrorist incident in CA I have been thinking about this a lot and think that one should step up their training with the handgun to help bridge the gaps between it and the rifle which is probably not there initially. The handgun is the harder weapon to shoot well and it requires more training. One should keep this in mind when working out at the range. One should also work at extending their effective range with the handgun. Most handgun training is 25 yards and in. I think that the experienced shooter should extend that to 50yards and work on that to be able to hit with effectiveness. Continue to train with the rifle of course but be prepare to start and end it with the handgun that you will have on you.

[YVK]

But I would like to see a proficient rifaliero vs. a proficient pistolero at 25 yards...holstered vs. slung hands off weapon and see who is faster on target. I have a suspicion given comparable skill the handgun will be faster.

That is probably the case but in a context of this thread's origin it would not provide meaningful data.

[GJM]

Were the rifles and handguns set up similarly for sights (irons or optics)?

I shot a CZ and my wife a G34, both with FO sights. The AR had a 30mm Aimpoint.

[Clobbersaurus]

5) Here is test one that we did. We set up three paper targets at 10, 12 and 14 yards. A Pistol Forum paper target at 10 and two IPSC cardboard targets at 12 and 14 yards. The drill was to draw the pistol and place two body shots on the eight inch circle, and then two head shots on each cardboard IPSC target. With the pistol, we settled on a 4.5 second par time for a clean run, based on several runs by my wife and me. My first run with the 9mm AR was 2.9 seconds clean, and my second run was also right at 2.9. My wife was 5.5 seconds on run one and right at 5 seconds on run 2 with the carbine. So, both slower than her pistol runs. (As a comp, she has E tickets in rifle and carbine from Gunsite, and shot a 114 and 115 with the pistol on the Rogers School test, last time she was there in April.) One difference was the AR started from the low ready and the pistol from the holster, so that obviously benefitted the AR.

6) Test two was to hit three eight inch steel plates, with one at 30 yards and the other two at 35 yards. With the pistol, we settled on a par time of six seconds, again based on multiple runs. It took a lot of concentration to do that consistently with the pistol. With the carbine, my best runs were at 2.0 seconds, and I was consistently under 3.0 seconds. My wife didn't shoot that one as it was getting late, and she still wanted to shoot her pistol.



You should try these tests with your Benelli as well, with a variety of ammo. I think it would give you some interesting data points.

[BehindBlueI's]

1) Overall, I am not discounting at all the difference in terminal ballistics between rifle and pistol cartridges. I am the guy who carries a USP 45 with .45 Super ammo in AK, backed up with a Benelli with Brenneke slugs, or a Guide Gun with Garrett ammo. Discounting the difference in terminal ballistics here, purely to focus on the technical shooting problem of placing hits on target.

2) The idea for this thread came out of several discussions with Gabe on your chances, if you encountered a terrorist/active shooter situation. Most of us don't walk around with our carbines, so that means your concealed handgun is likely what you have to try to solve the problem.

3) What I was hoping for was to have some theoretical discussion, hear about actual experiences like Kevin B posted on, and then for folks to run some drills to try to quantify the technical shooting delta (not terminal ballistics difference) between the carbine your terrorist is likely to have, and the handgun, you are likely to have.

4) The reason for the Colt 9mm AR, was so we could shoot steel targets at pistol distances, and not tear up the steel. I feel like the 5.56 AR cycles faster for me than the 9mm AR, but I don't think the differences are likely to be significant in this testing.

5) Here is test one that we did. We set up three paper targets at 10, 12 and 14 yards. A Pistol Forum paper target at 10 and two IPSC cardboard targets at 12 and 14 yards. The drill was to draw the pistol and place two body shots on the eight inch circle, and then two head shots on each cardboard IPSC target. With the pistol, we settled on a 4.5 second par time for a clean run, based on several runs by my wife and me. My first run with the 9mm AR was 2.9 seconds clean, and my second run was also right at 2.9. My wife was 5.5 seconds on run one and right at 5 seconds on run 2 with the carbine. So, both slower than her pistol runs. (As a comp, she has E tickets in rifle and carbine from Gunsite, and shot a 114 and 115 with the pistol on the Rogers School test, last time she was there in April.) One difference was the AR started from the low ready and the pistol from the holster, so that obviously benefitted the AR.

6) Test two was to hit three eight inch steel plates, with one at 30 yards and the other two at 35 yards. With the pistol, we settled on a par time of six seconds, again based on multiple runs. It took a lot of concentration to do that consistently with the pistol. With the carbine, my best runs were at 2.0 seconds, and I was consistently under 3.0 seconds. My wife didn't shoot that one as it was getting late, and she still wanted to shoot her pistol.

We hope to drag a carbine out with us over upcoming range sessions and gather more data. Hope to work in the (D)AUG and AR pistol in .300 bulk.

Unless you're the first victim, what relevance does draw time have?

Shooting is only a part of a gun battle, and the best shooter doesn't always win. Every cop can tell you that, some superb shooters have been dumped by shit bags who barely knew which end the bullet came out of, sometimes by luck but often by ambush and surprise. Par times, draw times, etc. are irrelevant if you pick your time and your opportunity to enter the fray. When I go to the gym, I'm generally armed with a 5 shot revolver and that's it. So, I pay attention to nearby choke points, cover, concealment, etc. In the extremely unlikely event of an active shooter, I already know where I'm going, what my tactics are, and the best places to make a stand. I am not clearing the building. When I go to the mall, I make the same determinations, and if my family is with me I put a greater priority on exits, including which stores have a back wall that touches an exterior wall so they'll likely have fire doors or delivery doors.

The ability to shoot well is great, and the better you are the more options you have. It's only one part of a gun battle, though, and really not the most important part.

[Kevin B.]

3) What I was hoping for was to have some theoretical discussion, hear about actual experiences like Kevin B posted on, and then for folks to run some drills to try to quantify the technical shooting delta (not terminal ballistics difference) between the carbine your terrorist is likely to have, and the handgun, you are likely to have.

I think Jeff Cooper was the first one to postulate that the performance ratio between rifle:pistol was 4:1. There are going to be any number of variables involved when confronting a rifle-armed opponent. That seems to be a good planning factor. Given this forum's focus on pistol shooting, it would not surprise me in the least to see some people here reduce that ratio.

Overall, the advantage goes to the person with the rifle.

[HCM]

An interesting point regarding Paris, the 3 Colombian Cartel guys that were hanging out in a cafe that was hosed down with AK fire returned fire and killed the shooters with their pistols. They probably wouldnt have had a chance to retrieve long guns even if parked on the street 30 feet away. Not that I have a problem with keeping long guns in the car, but I figure the odds are that whatever you have on you is what you get to try to solve the problem at hand.

ETA Dang I type slow,...

If they really were Colombian Cartel guys... That also makes a good cover story for all sorts of interesting folks.

[LSP552]

Lots of good discussion in this thread. I'd throw out one thing about ASSUMING your opponents will be unskilled. That might be the norm so far, but there are always exceptions and terrorists have shown a general ability to change MO and catch folks unaware. I'd rather assume they have technical skills (and not just shooting) and not underestimate them. The danger is in attempting something you could get away with against a hambone, but not a skilled player.

[okie john]

If they really were Colombian Cartel guys... That also makes a good cover story for all sorts of interesting folks.

Umm, yeah. This.


Okie John

[GJM]

I think Jeff Cooper was the first one to postulate that the performance ratio between rifle:pistol was 4:1. There are going to be any number of variables involved when confronting a rifle-armed opponent. That seems to be a good planning factor. Given this forum's focus on pistol shooting, it would not surprise me in the least to see some people here reduce that ratio.

Overall, the advantage goes to the person with the rifle.

I first met Jeff Cooper in 1991 when we took API 270, general rifle with him. I don't recall him saying that but I wouldn't be surprised. To evaluate the statement, I think we would need to know at what distance and on what basis he made that statement. At Clint Smith UC distance, I would think the handgun would be closer to 50 percent, and as the distance grows, I can see a long gun being 10 or 100 times more effective.

In light of this thread, as soon as we arrived at the range, I shot a five shot group at 30 yards with my CZ, at a relevant pace. The result was good enough, I took a picture.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/image_zpsq5pmeq2a.jpeg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/image_zpsq5pmeq2a.jpeg.html)

Near the end of our practice session, I shot our drills with a .300 BLK AR pistol, and a 6920, and for me, the long gun was decisively more effective in putting accurate shots on target quickly in the 10-35 yard envelope.

Looking forward to Mr_White weighing in on Monday.

[ajp3jeh]

One of my favorite demos is to have my folks shoot our handgun qual course with their rifle. Most folks clean it (30/30) with the rifle, something they've never come close to with their pistols. Additionally the quality of hits is much better.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[LSP552]

In light of this thread, as soon as we arrived at the range, I shot a five shot group at 30 yards with my CZ, at a relevant pace. The result was good enough, I took a picture.

Near the end of our practice session, I shot our drills with a .300 BLK AR pistol, and a 6920, and for me, the long gun was decisively more effective in putting accurate shots on target quickly in the 10-35 yard envelope.

Looking forward to Mr_White weighing in on Monday.

Very nice shooting. You have mentioned the CZ earlier, just wondering if you are carrying your CZ more now and/or putting a greater emphasis on usable accuracy at distance?

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Looking forward to Mr_White weighing in on Monday.

I'm not. He'll just be like "well, running a timer on my first shot from concealment on a 4" circle at 100y while sprinting, I found I was nearly a full tenth down from my carbine reaction time of .77, so I guess I need to do more dry fire."

DON'T ENCOURAGE HIM.

[JSGlock34]

5) Here is test one that we did. We set up three paper targets at 10, 12 and 14 yards. A Pistol Forum paper target at 10 and two IPSC cardboard targets at 12 and 14 yards. The drill was to draw the pistol and place two body shots on the eight inch circle, and then two head shots on each cardboard IPSC target. With the pistol, we settled on a 4.5 second par time for a clean run, based on several runs by my wife and me. My first run with the 9mm AR was 2.9 seconds clean, and my second run was also right at 2.9. My wife was 5.5 seconds on run one and right at 5 seconds on run 2 with the carbine. So, both slower than her pistol runs. (As a comp, she has E tickets in rifle and carbine from Gunsite, and shot a 114 and 115 with the pistol on the Rogers School test, last time she was there in April.) One difference was the AR started from the low ready and the pistol from the holster, so that obviously benefitted the AR.

6) Test two was to hit three eight inch steel plates, with one at 30 yards and the other two at 35 yards. With the pistol, we settled on a par time of six seconds, again based on multiple runs. It took a lot of concentration to do that consistently with the pistol. With the carbine, my best runs were at 2.0 seconds, and I was consistently under 3.0 seconds. My wife didn't shoot that one as it was getting late, and she still wanted to shoot her pistol.

I'd be curious to see how your results differed with longer shot strings (for example, using the Half and Half drill for comparison). One of the benefits of the long arm is the greater recoil control when delivering a larger volume of fire.

[GJM]

Very nice shooting. You have mentioned the CZ earlier, just wondering if you are carrying your CZ more now and/or putting a greater emphasis on usable accuracy at distance?

It was a surprise, and that is the reason for the picture. Maybe the best offhand group with a pistol that I remember at 30 yards.

I have been competing with a Shadow and carrying a P229.


I'm not. He'll just be like "well, running a timer on my first shot from concealment on a 4" circle at 100y while sprinting, I found I was nearly a full tenth down from my carbine reaction time of .77, so I guess I need to do more dry fire."

DON'T ENCOURAGE HIM.

Gabe is the reason I started this thread. Need him to get back to work to have time to respond. :)


I'd be curious to see how your results differed with longer shot strings (for example, using the Half and Half drill for comparison). One of the benefits of the long arm is the greater recoil control when delivering a larger volume of fire.

I noted it but didn't report it -- that the AR splits very fast while still maintaining a high level of accuracy. Way better than a pistol.

I am actually kind of bummed by my experimentation. Despite shooting a handgun 100X more than the carbine, I can pick the carbine up and run circles around my handgun. The premise of this was feeling like the handgun could deal with the long gun equipped shooter. Perhaps, but it would take some luck or a minimally trained long gun shooter. Think JM makes an AIWB to conceal a .300 AR pistol?

[JHC]

1) Overall, I am not discounting at all the difference in terminal ballistics between rifle and pistol cartridges. I am the guy who carries a USP 45 with .45 Super ammo in AK, backed up with a Benelli with Brenneke slugs, or a Guide Gun with Garrett ammo. Discounting the difference in terminal ballistics here, purely to focus on the technical shooting problem of placing hits on target.

2) The idea for this thread came out of several discussions with Gabe on your chances, if you encountered a terrorist/active shooter situation. Most of us don't walk around with our carbines, so that means your concealed handgun is likely what you have to try to solve the problem.

3) What I was hoping for was to have some theoretical discussion, hear about actual experiences like Kevin B posted on, and then for folks to run some drills to try to quantify the technical shooting delta (not terminal ballistics difference) between the carbine your terrorist is likely to have, and the handgun, you are likely to have.

4) The reason for the Colt 9mm AR, was so we could shoot steel targets at pistol distances, and not tear up the steel. I feel like the 5.56 AR cycles faster for me than the 9mm AR, but I don't think the differences are likely to be significant in this testing.

5) Here is test one that we did. We set up three paper targets at 10, 12 and 14 yards. A Pistol Forum paper target at 10 and two IPSC cardboard targets at 12 and 14 yards. The drill was to draw the pistol and place two body shots on the eight inch circle, and then two head shots on each cardboard IPSC target. With the pistol, we settled on a 4.5 second par time for a clean run, based on several runs by my wife and me. My first run with the 9mm AR was 2.9 seconds clean, and my second run was also right at 2.9. My wife was 5.5 seconds on run one and right at 5 seconds on run 2 with the carbine. So, both slower than her pistol runs. (As a comp, she has E tickets in rifle and carbine from Gunsite, and shot a 114 and 115 with the pistol on the Rogers School test, last time she was there in April.) One difference was the AR started from the low ready and the pistol from the holster, so that obviously benefitted the AR.

6) Test two was to hit three eight inch steel plates, with one at 30 yards and the other two at 35 yards. With the pistol, we settled on a par time of six seconds, again based on multiple runs. It took a lot of concentration to do that consistently with the pistol. With the carbine, my best runs were at 2.0 seconds, and I was consistently under 3.0 seconds. My wife didn't shoot that one as it was getting late, and she still wanted to shoot her pistol.

We hope to drag a carbine out with us over upcoming range sessions and gather more data. Hope to work in the (D)AUG and AR pistol in .300 bulk.

A couple months ago I shot some carbine and shotgun on some multiple target arrays of IPSC targets and although it was basically the first time I'd shot either long gun in close to a year both left the pistol in the dust from 7-25 yds for speed to alphas on target. My AR carbine Bill Drill from low ready was about 3/4 second faster than pistol.

Although it undeniable the pistolero is at great disadvantage, a one on one like KB's mind boggling duel may be the totally worst case scenario. OTOH, in an active shooter attack as in recent events, we are but one among many potential victims in the "kill zone" and the attackers own focus could likely be on others until we engage. So we have that going for us.

[Malamute]

Lots of good discussion in this thread. I'd throw out one thing about ASSUMING your opponents will be unskilled. That might be the norm so far, but there are always exceptions and terrorists have shown a general ability to change MO and catch folks unaware. I'd rather assume they have technical skills (and not just shooting) and not underestimate them. The danger is in attempting something you could get away with against a hambone, but not a skilled player.

Agree with your conclusion. I think I've mentioned elsewhere not assuming they would be "well trained" as the media generally thinks and states, and often look like doofuses, though assuming thats always the case isnt smart. I think my point is not just taking the defeated beforehand perspective as some seem to do, and that its hopeless to even try when they are "Well Trained!" and have "AK47's!!". Resistance isnt futile.



Although it undeniable the pistolero is at great disadvantage, a one on one like KB's mind boggling duel may be the totally worst case scenario. OTOH, in an active shooter attack as in recent events, we are but one among many potential victims in the "kill zone" and the attackers own focus could likely be on others until we engage. So we have that going for us.


That may be an important moment. I hope anyone that finds themself in that moment know what to do with it before it passes. From our perspective, the ideal would seem the first they realize theres resistance should be that odd feeling that they were hit with something but dont understand what.

In my perfect world, it would be women that get the scoring hits, and its well publicized. ISIS is of the belief that if killed by a lowly creature like a woman, they dont go to paradise and get their virgins. The Kurdish women shooting at them in Syria unnerve them. Most humorous. Perhaps if executed for their crimes, it could be done by women executioners.

[LSP552]

In my perfect world, it would be women that get the scoring hits, and its well publicized. ISIS is of the belief that if killed by a lowly creature like a woman, they dont go to paradise and get their virgins. The Kurdish women shooting at them in Syria unnerve them. Most humorous. Perhaps if executed for their crimes, it could be done by women executioners.

I'm dipping the nose of my Gold Dots in bacon grease tomorrow morning!

[pangloss]

The 4:1 advantage seems a reasonable estimate, but I don't think that can be applied universally. Today I went to a Christmas parade and to see the Nutcracker ballet. At both events I was thinking about what I would do if a mass shooter showed up. I think that the total chaos that accompanies a mass shooting would potentially benefit the pistol shooter. If you're in a room with at least two other people shooting rifles and dozens to hundreds of people running around screaming, does anyone think it's likely that a good guy with a pistol could shoot at and miss the bad guy with the rifle and the bad guy not realize he's being shot at? Similarly, it seems possible that the bad guy could be wounded and not know who shot him (particularly in a situations like the Aurora and Paris Bataclan shootings). It's not something I'd want to bank on, but it seems like the chaos could be exploited in favor of the pistol shooter.

[BehindBlueI's]

The 4:1 advantage seems a reasonable estimate, but I don't think that can be applied universally. Today I went to a Christmas parade and to see the Nutcracker ballet. At both events I was thinking about what I would do if a mass shooter showed up. I think that the total chaos that accompanies a mass shooting would potentially benefit the pistol shooter. If you're in a room with at least two other people shooting rifles and dozens to hundreds of people running around screaming, does anyone think it's likely that a good guy with a pistol could shoot at and miss the bad guy with the rifle and the bad guy not realize he's being shot at? Similarly, it seems possible that the bad guy could be wounded and not know who shot him (particularly in a situations like the Aurora and Paris Bataclan shootings). It's not something I'd want to bank on, but it seems like the chaos could be exploited in favor of the pistol shooter.

Even in simulated active shooter scenarios I have failed to see who fired shots in a crowd. In some cases I didn't realize a shot had been fired "at me" from a blank gun. Especially with dozens to hundreds of role players screaming, running, etc. Its quite possible to not see a gunman. This is part if the reason I'm saying this emphasis on pure shooting as determining the outcome is being vastly over stated.

[Mr_White]

I think the rifle definitely is at fundamental advantage over the pistol in several ways. That's important, but only one of many factors, some of which can trump the crap out of the rifle advantage - such as speed, surprise, better tactics, a great disparity of skill.

In a lot of circumstances I think a given shooter will be a few levels of skill higher using a rifle than using a pistol. But for all the respect rightfully given to the capability of a poor or mediocre shooter armed with a long gun, a pretty skilled pistol shooter can function, in terms of speed and accuracy and within a certain distance, as effectively as a rifleman, albeit one with somewhat less skill. I know I've made some shots with my pistol that still would have been pretty good shots had they been made with a rifle.

The other night our training group had occasion to shoot rifles a little bit. One thing we did was a stage where you shoot your pistol a little, but mostly shoot a couple of rifles from a few positions at some small targets. A couple of us skipped the rifles and shot pistol the whole time. I was in second place shooting pistol only. The other pistol guy did ok too. That stage is just one arbitrary measure and speed and accuracy are not the only advantages of rifles. But in terms of putting hits on target fast, the pistols were able to hang with the rifles and I thought that was interesting. Some of those are pretty skilled rifle guys too. The stage was within 20 yards, so that's part of it I'm sure.

I think there are some military examples floating around of a pistol armed person decimating several rifle armed adversaries at close range. It can definitely be done. Kevin B.'s account was very interesting to read. Thank you for posting that.

Bottom line to me is that many times things really do work out to a matter of "Who dares, wins." Skill helps get you confidence and confidence helps let you dare.

[Surf]

All things being equal in shooter skill and circumstance the rifle is far superior. However as has been discussed there are always a wide array of variables that can be the determining factor as opposed to simply the advantage offered by the weapon.

[pangloss]

Even in simulated active shooter scenarios I have failed to see who fired shots in a crowd. In some cases I didn't realize a shot had been fired "at me" from a blank gun. Especially with dozens to hundreds of role players screaming, running, etc. Its quite possible to not see a gunman. This is part if the reason I'm saying this emphasis on pure shooting as determining the outcome is being vastly over stated.

Thanks. I'm glad to see that my speculation matches up with your training.

Getting back to the broader question of how to narrow the gap between rifle and pistol performance, I put a RMR on a G19 and instantly became a much better shooter at distance. My splits on targets in the 10-12 yard range are about the same as with iron sites, but admittedly I'm not a fast shooter. I've only recently become able to track the sights during firing, and I'm still not very good at it. I'm not sure if I'll reach a skill level where reciprocation of the dot becomes a limiting factor. I've played around with my RMR G19 out to 200 yards. I could land bullets close to the target but hits were pretty rare. By contrast, ringing the steel round after round with the AR was easy.

Lastly, here's a LINK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQPhLeyzkLY) to a scene from Fist Full of Dollars that is somewhat relevant to this discussion.

[SLG]

The 4:1 advantage seems a reasonable estimate, but I don't think that can be applied universally. Today I went to a Christmas parade and to see the Nutcracker ballet. At both events I was thinking about what I would do if a mass shooter showed up. I think that the total chaos that accompanies a mass shooting would potentially benefit the pistol shooter. If you're in a room with at least two other people shooting rifles and dozens to hundreds of people running around screaming, does anyone think it's likely that a good guy with a pistol could shoot at and miss the bad guy with the rifle and the bad guy not realize he's being shot at? Similarly, it seems possible that the bad guy could be wounded and not know who shot him (particularly in a situations like the Aurora and Paris Bataclan shootings). It's not something I'd want to bank on, but it seems like the chaos could be exploited in favor of the pistol shooter.

The flip side to that is that when you have tons of panicked people running around, often in low light, it can be very hard to actually get a clear shot on a bad guy and not hit an innocent by accident. And hope none of the unarmed innocents think you're the bad guy and try to take you on instead.

In a duel, I'd rather be at 100 yards with my pistol against a bad guy with a rifle. In a mass attack, it could definitely be better to be close. Not a good situation from any angle.

[SteveB]

All of this good discussion points to a related topic: In a pistol vs rifle situation, and/or a mass shooting event (especially with multiple shooters), better to be armed with a double-stack, closer-to-full-size handgun, than a single-stack, subcompact or J-frame. Having a long gun in the vehicle is great, but actual deployment seems unlikely. But the evolution of the mass shooting from "lone gunman" to "multiple jihadi assholes" makes the Glock 43 vs Glock 19 or 239 vs 229 decision easier.

[Gray222]

All of this good discussion points to a related topic: In a pistol vs rifle situation, and/or a mass shooting event (especially with multiple shooters), better to be armed with a double-stack, closer-to-full-size handgun, than a single-stack, subcompact or J-frame. Having a long gun in the vehicle is great, but actual deployment seems unlikely. But the evolution of the mass shooting from "lone gunman" to "multiple jihadi assholes" makes the Glock 43 vs Glock 19 or 239 vs 229 decision easier.

As for the long gun, we should not automatically assume a retreat to you vehicle would be impossible. It wont be and unless you are smack dab in the middle of the shit, itll be your choice to get into the fight with what you have or get to your vehicle, jock up, and get to work.

[Kevin B.]

All of this good discussion points to a related topic: In a pistol vs rifle situation, and/or a mass shooting event (especially with multiple shooters), better to be armed with a double-stack, closer-to-full-size handgun, than a single-stack, subcompact or J-frame. Having a long gun in the vehicle is great, but actual deployment seems unlikely. But the evolution of the mass shooting from "lone gunman" to "multiple jihadi assholes" makes the Glock 43 vs Glock 19 or 239 vs 229 decision easier.

I would agree that having more ammunition available is prudent. Whether that ammunition is in your gun or on your person is largely irrelevant. Far more important is the ability to deliver decisive hits quickly.

[UNK]

Great thread. I just bought a Sig 320 Carry which holds 17 rounds for this very purpose. Zeroed Streamlight laser/light at 50 yards this weekend with gold dot 147 gn. Going back to a different place next weekend to shoot at 100 yards. Not convinced the laser is the ultimate setup but bifocals and severe astigmatism force me to do something other than iron sights if I want to hit head sized targets at distance.
Not sure about the 147 at distance. 124 +p has 3" less drop at 100 yards when zeroed at 25 yards.
Going to do some research this week on 10mm trajectories and ammo availability.
eta Any recommendations caliber wise will be appreciated.

Hers a thread I started about how much ammo to carry for active shooter scenarios. I think that and this thread cross reference very well.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?17439-How-much-ammo-is-enough

[UNK]

The 4:1 advantage seems a reasonable estimate, but I don't think that can be applied universally. Today I went to a Christmas parade and to see the Nutcracker ballet. At both events I was thinking about what I would do if a mass shooter showed up. I think that the total chaos that accompanies a mass shooting would potentially benefit the pistol shooter. If you're in a room with at least two other people shooting rifles and dozens to hundreds of people running around screaming, does anyone think it's likely that a good guy with a pistol could shoot at and miss the bad guy with the rifle and the bad guy not realize he's being shot at? Similarly, it seems possible that the bad guy could be wounded and not know who shot him (particularly in a situations like the Aurora and Paris Bataclan shootings). It's not something I'd want to bank on, but it seems like the chaos could be exploited in favor of the pistol shooter.
Yes I agree. Walk into a crowded auditorium and try to find one specific person. If they are not waving at you they are pretty damn hard to find.

[psalms144.1]

Sorry to come into this late, things have been very very very hectic at work since Wed...

My thoughts:

1. I am NOT a rifleman. Never have been. But, on any kind of dynamic shooting test which involved me moving/shooting while targets were moving/shooting, I am ALWAYS faster and more proficient with a long gun past arm's length
2. Having said that, the thing a rifle REQUIRES for efficient operation is two working hands. Take one hand out of the equation due to injury or dealing with other things (I come from a protection background, so frequently assume at least one hand will be on my Principal, to keep him from doing anything heroic), and the pistol becomes a lot more "tactically viable."
3. Assuming you are a competent shooter, against an untrained adversary, distance (within reason) is ALWAYS your friend, regardless of what they're carrying, or what you're carrying
4. The corollary to the above statement is the luck factor. Sometimes it's your day to die. The last victim at the Navy Yard shooting was instantly killed by a shotgun pellet to the CNS at a ridiculous range, fired down an alley from the hip using a "sawed off" 870. God wanted that poor victim in heaven that day, only He knows why
5. The second corollary to #3 is I'm afraid we're ASSuming our adversaries will always be untrained. I think this is a fatally flawed assumption. Against a trained adversary with a decent long-gun, COVER is your only friend. As pointed out in #1, I'm MUCH more effective with a rifle than a handgun, and I've probably trained 1,000 pistol rounds for every rifle round I've fired in my life. Trying to close distance against a trained rifleman is going to be EXTREMELY dangerous, unless there are covered routes to get closer. Even then, I'd ONLY close to a distance at which I felt I could consistently take a CNS shot.
6. Everyone who has done actual scenario-based training or been involved in an actual mass shooting event knows that target discrimination is in fact going to be one of the biggest issues you deal with. This argues both ways - distance with a long gun gives you the opportunity to "see the big picture," up close gives you the ability to see more detail (especially for old bastards like me, whose distance vision is failing)

[Mr_White]

Had a (rare for me) chance yesterday to do some pistol vs. rifle shooting at longer distances than I normally get to shoot. No real science here, just a short, informal test that reinforced some impressions I have.

I shot two drills that used the steel targets we happened to have set up (this was just some fun shooting with some friends, and I shoehorned this test in there.)


Test 1: MGM B/C type target at 243 yards. Tested time to first hit, starting at low ready with safety on.

AR (iron sights): 3.05, hit on first shot
AK (iron sights): 3.80, hit on second shot
G34 (iron sights): 5.48, hit on third shot


Test 2: 6" round plate and 8" round plate at 50 yards, ~10x12" rectangle at 100 yards. Tested time to hit all three, starting at low ready with safety on.

AR (iron sights): 6.93, hit three targets in three shots
AK (iron sights): 7.39, hit three targets in four shots
G34 (iron sights): 3.65, hit three targets in three shots
AR (red dot): 4.31, hit three targets in three shots


Foolishly didn't think to shoot my buddy's AR with the dot on test 1.

I was surprised at how much I beat the shit out of the rifle times with my pistol at 50-100 yards. I am massively more practiced with pistol than rifle (I think I have shot rifles on maybe three or four occasions, including this one, in the last five years.) Need to get a dot for that AR. I hate the stock AR peep sights. Very busy and I have an undeveloped index with that gun. In Test 2, a lot of the time came from getting the gun mounted and trying to stay on/get back on the sights. It's made worse by having to duck my head down, which gets me looking out the edges of my glasses. Pistol with head more upright was a lot easier from that standpoint. Even though I am only one person, maybe I got some semblance of 'better pistol shooter against worse rifle shooter' in there?

---

I don't think the point of this thread is to figure out whether a pistol or rifle is more capable or which one we'd rather have in our hands when we happen to need to fight for our lives. Because rifle, duh. To me, the point of the thread is to figure out that using a pistol successfully against rifle-armed adversaries is not hopeless in the least. And it could even be downright lopsided against the rifle guys, depending on the tactics and skill with which we employ the pistol, and a whole lot of other things too.

[Malamute]

---

I don't think the point of this thread is to figure out whether a pistol or rifle is more capable or which one we'd rather have in our hands when we happen to need to fight for our lives. Because rifle, duh. To me, the point of the thread is to figure out that using a pistol successfully against rifle-armed adversaries is not hopeless in the least. And it could even be downright lopsided against the rifle guys, depending on the tactics and skill with which we employ the pistol, and a whole lot of other things too.

I think this sums up the question well. Well said.

[UNK]

Wish I could hit the like button multiple times.


I don't think the point of this thread is to figure out whether a pistol or rifle is more capable or which one we'd rather have in our hands when we happen to need to fight for our lives. Because rifle, duh. To me, the point of the thread is to figure out that using a pistol successfully against rifle-armed adversaries is not hopeless in the least. And it could even be downright lopsided against the rifle guys, depending on the tactics and skill with which we employ the pistol, and a whole lot of other things too.


I think this sums up the question well. Well said.

[UNK]

Elmer Keith's front sight marked for elevation

4825

[Rex G]

Elmer Keith's front sight marked for elevation

4825

Amen! I need one of these for Glocks.

[Malamute]

Amen! I need one of these for Glocks.


The dot on glock front sights work OK for ranging.

[UNK]

The ability to get hits at greater than ATM distance is important.
awesome

[Lomshek]

The dot on glock front sights work OK for ranging.

Any front sight with a dot has a number of easy aiming references to align with the top of the rear sight for different distances.

1) Top of front sight

2) Top of dot

3) Middle of dot

4) Bottom of dot

5) Bottom of front sight blade

I imagine if you're using the bottom of your front sight that's getting you out to 300 yards (maybe more).

Sounds like a fun trip to the range is in order to test the various sight holds. Even if one can only test at a shorter range knowing the POI of each hold will let you figure out a crude dope with a ballistic calculator.

[Malamute]

For 300, the top of the rear is about 2/3 down the dot.

A friend bought a g-20. We were out shooting it, and i just made a guess and used the same hold and hit the 300 yard plate with her gun. She also managed it when I told her the hold I was using. It was luck that the same hold worked, but its likely pretty close with most in the same general velocity range. 45 auto takes a LOT of sight though, if using ammo in the 850 fps vel range.

BTW, mine is sighted to hit just above the front sight @ 25 yards. I dont know what the hold would be with a different POI/POA.

[UNK]

4848


I'm dipping the nose of my Gold Dots in bacon grease tomorrow morning!

[GJM]

My wife and I ended up with a few hours free this afternoon in eastern Utah, and decided to go shoot some carbines. We needed to first verify zero on two carbines, and set up a dual six inch target at 50 yards, an IPSC cardboard at 100 yards, and a 9x12 inch target at 200 yards. It was high 40's, some wind, and high overcast.

After getting the zeroes adjusted, it was one shot, one hit on the steel at 200 yards, with 16 inch AR carbines with an Aimpoint and PMC 55 grain FMJ. Five shot groups at 100 yards were running 1.5-2.0 inches. Here was our shooting position.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/IMG_4180_zps0p5zzqfe.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/IMG_4180_zps0p5zzqfe.jpg.html)

Considering this thread, we then went to pistols at 200 yards on the steel. I was 2/3 for hits with my P229 from sitting, then ended 5 hits out of 20 shots. I do think wind was a factor, but it was still very hard. I have HD sights on that pistol, and I think they are quite thick for this kind of shooting. My wife then went with her Glock 26. She hit on the first shot, then struggled to get consistent hits. Here is her shooting position and the range set-up.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/IMG_4188_zpsps5vwltz.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/IMG_4188_zpsps5vwltz.jpg.html)

You can see the two six inch targets at 50, and the 9x12 steel way out there.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/IMG_4189_zpslzewld5y.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/IMG_4189_zpslzewld5y.jpg.html)

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the pistol could keep up with the carbine at 200, but if there was any doubt, I can confirm it!

[KevinB]

Great posts above by Kevin B (the not me one ;) and Psalms


Apologizes in advance as I started drifting...


A couple years ago I went to an Army course - folks where struggling in gear to get good fast hits with their ACOG's - I pointed out their vis laser on the APTIAL and that it gave them the ability to get exceptionally fast hits in close without trying to find a sight picture.

An untrained guy with an AK can hit you very easily at 75yds and in, and more importantly quickly, obviously with training their distance increases and times go down.
Many Many Many moon ago (1992) I had a trainer (RIP Alan H.) who had us snap shooting over covered sights onto Fig14 "Hun's Head's" at 100m - with his point at 100m and in you could effectively muscle memory/point shoot a rifle to hit a head at that distance -- he was trying to get folks speeds up and not to worry about trying to get all rounds touching. Similar to what Ken Hackathorn does with taping folks sights over - to get them understanding that at certain distances you can align a weapon and get quick hits.

The reason I mention the above - is 99.9% of the active shooter/terrorists are not going to have an optic or sighting system other than irons - and most will be aiming by feel/general area insh'allah (basically if god wills it) principle -- but they can still be very dangerous.
Running a competition between some guy with a CCO on a SBR is not going to be the same as that.

Other point - as IIRC SLG, Pangloss, and Brian B mention - the situation you face is likely going to be chaotic, uncertain and PID will be a bitch.
Once you have PID, target discrimination for engagement can be massively complicated in a crowed situation, in addition to people, there will likely be smoke, fire, noise etc, kind of like a gunfight/battle can be.

For a pistol I view a WML as a must have - and I view a MRDS as a huge enabler.

Long guns are great if you have them, but TCCC gear, comms equipment, signaling, distraction items, as well as PPE are also.



Would I feel under-armed with my pistol in a situation like that -- yes, but understanding that it was a weapon, and could be used very effectively using cover/concealment and ideally surprise, and as mentioned before, I could ideally get a free upgrade soon in.
Mainly for the barrier penetration ability of long guns...

[UNK]

4864

Great posts above by Kevin B (the not me one ;) and Psalms


Apologizes in advance as I started drifting...


A couple years ago I went to an Army course - folks where struggling in gear to get good fast hits with their ACOG's - I pointed out their vis laser on the APTIAL and that it gave them the ability to get exceptionally fast hits in close without trying to find a sight picture.

An untrained guy with an AK can hit you very easily at 75yds and in, and more importantly quickly, obviously with training their distance increases and times go down.
Many Many Many moon ago (1992) I had a trainer (RIP Alan H.) who had us snap shooting over covered sights onto Fig14 "Hun's Head's" at 100m - with his point at 100m and in you could effectively muscle memory/point shoot a rifle to hit a head at that distance -- he was trying to get folks speeds up and not to worry about trying to get all rounds touching. Similar to what Ken Hackathorn does with taping folks sights over - to get them understanding that at certain distances you can align a weapon and get quick hits.

The reason I mention the above - is 99.9% of the active shooter/terrorists are not going to have an optic or sighting system other than irons - and most will be aiming by feel/general area insh'allah (basically if god wills it) principle -- but they can still be very dangerous.
Running a competition between some guy with a CCO on a SBR is not going to be the same as that.

Other point - as IIRC SLG, Pangloss, and Brian B mention - the situation you face is likely going to be chaotic, uncertain and PID will be a bitch.
Once you have PID, target discrimination for engagement can be massively complicated in a crowed situation, in addition to people, there will likely be smoke, fire, noise etc, kind of like a gunfight/battle can be.

For a pistol I view a WML as a must have - and I view a MRDS as a huge enabler.

Long guns are great if you have them, but TCCC gear, comms equipment, signaling, distraction items, as well as PPE are also.



Would I feel under-armed with my pistol in a situation like that -- yes, but understanding that it was a weapon, and could be used very effectively using cover/concealment and ideally surprise, and as mentioned before, I could ideally get a free upgrade soon in.
Mainly for the barrier penetration ability of long guns...

[Mr_White]

We've been talking longer distances in terms of pistol shooting. How about closer? How do you guys think someone shooting a rifle would score on some standardized course/test that's within 25 yards, like say the IDPA Classifier, vs. shooting a pistol?

[Luke]

We've been talking longer distances in terms of pistol shooting. How about closer? How do you guys think someone shooting a rifle would score on some standardized course/test that's within 25 yards, like say the IDPA Classifier, vs. shooting a pistol?

Always wondered this myself. Some times we can stay after a match and shoot a little, might see if I can convince someone to let me run my rifle on a stage.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Totally ancedotally but we run carbine matches on stages quite similar to the IDPA pistol matches due to range configurations. So it's all pretty close up. My nonscientific view is that there isn't that much difference. IIRC, HCM has shot pistol in the carbine matches and he might comment.

I'll shoot my G17 sometimes and I think my hits are reasonably close in performance to the guys with carbines (of course, this is just who shows and there is a large variance in training). I think I see a tendency for lower impacts with some folks with the carbines. Obviously some folks are awesome with the carbines. Some aren't.

Times - no idea. I might ask the match director next time I see him.

Last time, I saw a guy at just a few feet shoot the wood support of the target with a decked out AR.

[BN]

I've never considered myself to be a good carbine shooter. I used to shoot with a group that would meet and shoot handguns for a while and then switch over to carbines. Might be 20 or 30 shooters on the line. The range we used kept shots within 30 yards. I could always shoot more accurately with my handgun. I just seems like the rifle is big and unwieldy. The sights just moved all over the place.

Anyway, yesterday I put it to the test. I set up 5 targets and started at 25 yards, fired 5 shots at 1 target, and then moved back 25 yards, fired 5 shots at another target each time until I had fired 5 shots at targets at 25, 50, 75, 100 and 125 yards. Here are the targets from 100 and 125:
4879

When I got back to 125 with the rifle, I thought, why not shoot from a seated position. Nobody can even see me back here. ;) So, if I can have a supported shooting position with a rifle, I can shoot more accurately.
My standing group at 100 yards was 12" with the carbine and 9" with my CZ P-01. At 125 yards, my seated group with the .223 was 8.5". With the P-01 I had 3 shots in 13" with 2 hits off the paper. All shots were fired from a standing position except the 1 rifle group at 125.

I guess I just proved that I am a bad rifle shot. That AR will shoot 1" at 100 with that ammo.
4880

I don't keep my carbine in my car, so, I guess it's good that I can shoot a pistol that I will have with me. :)

[MVS]

We've been talking longer distances in terms of pistol shooting. How about closer? How do you guys think someone shooting a rifle would score on some standardized course/test that's within 25 yards, like say the IDPA Classifier, vs. shooting a pistol?

Over the summer I shot a 2 gun league at my local range/club. Because of the berm setup we are limited to 40 yards. Of most of the people there, they were far more proficient even at those distances with their carbines. Now obviously skill levels vary widely in outlaw matches so this may or may not be a good indicator. We are pistol centric here, but that isn't the case everywhere. I would normally win or be in the top 2 at those matches, not by a huge margin, but significant. Now I shoot with some of these same guys at an indoor pistol league for the winter and even at my mediocre skill level, it is not even close. In addition, when teaching rifle classes I have taken to doing a short pistol primer at the beginning because everyone wants to wear their pistol but many have no clue how to safely or efficiently use it.

To your actual point, I guess I should try doing the IDPA classifier with pistol and rifle.

[pangloss]

We've been talking longer distances in terms of pistol shooting. How about closer? How do you guys think someone shooting a rifle would score on some standardized course/test that's within 25 yards, like say the IDPA Classifier, vs. shooting a pistol?

In 2010 at a local IDPA match in which I shot, a guy shot the match with his carbine. Much to my amazement, I am able to locate the LINK (http://www.wgc-idpa.org/Results/2010/F-030610.htm#rank) to the match scores in G-mail. The rifle shooter came in 4th overall and 2nd for accuracy. This doesn't really tell us a lot, but I think it's safe to say that a person with a rifle is not guaranteed to dominate in the <25 yard range, though they would likely have an advantage over most shooters. Also, it bears mentioning that some of the classifications listed on that web page are wrong. That was the very first match I shot, and somehow they had me down as a Master.

EDIT: I checked the match scores for the following month when the guy who used the rifle shot with his pistol. For that match, the same guy came in 11th overall and sixth for accuracy (LINK (http://www.wgc-idpa.org/Results/2010/F-040310.htm#rank)).

[nalesq]

We've been talking longer distances in terms of pistol shooting. How about closer? How do you guys think someone shooting a rifle would score on some standardized course/test that's within 25 yards, like say the IDPA Classifier, vs. shooting a pistol?

I took a "home defense" class taught by Ken Hackathorn several years ago. Much of the class involved clearing a house-like structure. Most targets were therefore considerably closer than 25m. This was done mostly with handguns, but for one or two of the evolutions, students were given the option of using a carbine. Observing the action from a catwalk, I was very surprised to note that many of the students actually performed significantly better with a handgun than with a carbine.

[JM Campbell]

Totally ancedotally but we run carbine matches on stages quite similar to the IDPA pistol matches due to range configurations. So it's all pretty close up. My nonscientific view is that there isn't that much difference. IIRC, HCM has shot pistol in the carbine matches and he might comment.

I'll shoot my G17 sometimes and I think my hits are reasonably close in performance to the guys with carbines (of course, this is just who shows and there is a large variance in training). I think I see a tendency for lower impacts with some folks with the carbines. Obviously some folks are awesome with the carbines. Some aren't.

Times - no idea. I might ask the match director next time I see him.

Last time, I saw a guy at just a few feet shoot the wood support of the target with a decked out AR.
Justintime and I did a 3 gun comp with the same group your talking about running rmr equipped glock 17 and m&p 9. We took 1 and 2 in outlaw division and down right smoked some very good rifle shooters with the up close targets in alot of stages. I think we took 11 and 12 overall.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[John Hearne]

I think it's safe to say that a person with a rifle is not guaranteed to dominate in the <25 yard range, though they would likely have an advantage over most shooters.

My local IDPA club lets me shoot my 9mm AR as a second gun in their matches. Time wise, I generally just a smidge faster with my pistol than I am the rifle. Accuracy wise, the AR is much, much easier to deliver hits with at speed. The only issue the AR has at closer ranges is the sight offset when making precision shots.

I know we didn't want to consider it but comparing accuracy and speed without considering the blow struck (physiological and psychological) is a fun intellectual exercise that is completely detached from the real world.

[Mr_White]

I know we didn't want to consider it but comparing accuracy and speed without considering the blow struck (physiological and psychological) is a fun intellectual exercise that is completely detached from the real world.

I think the terminal ballistics difference and increased ability to penetrate barriers has been noted a couple of times. Psychological effects are hard to measure, so some of us are looking at what can be measured easily. I don't agree that examining the relative handling characteristics and the speed and accuracy of getting hits on target with rifles and pistols is "completely detached from the real world." It is most certainly not all of the equation but is most certainly still part of it. It could turn out to be the most important part.

And it doesn't matter if we don't like the nature of pistol vs. rifle. That's likely to be the factual situation for many of us, if we are there. So I'm interested in looking for ways to win, not reasons to lose.

What I wouldn't give for a skilled and armed pistol shooter to be there when one of these events jumps off. A cop, a C class USPSA shooter, an IDPA or SWAT guy. Or dare to dream for someone with a higher level of skill and/or experience. An armed combat veteran. A Master in a handgun discipline. An Advanced shooter from Rogers, or even an Intermediate one. I think all these people have a very real potential to dominate rifle-armed adversaries. Part of the foundation is for them to recognize that they can.

[Failure2Stop]

Comparing good pistol shooters against poor carbine shooters does not tell much of a tale as to what tool is best for a job.

I agree with Mr. White: a solid pistol shooter that takes decisive action is going to seriously harsh the vibe of a previously unencumbered/unstressed rifle-wielding douche.


From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba

[KevinB]

So I'm interested in looking for ways to win, not reasons to lose.




Comparing good pistol shooters against poor carbine shooters does not tell much of a tale as to what tool is best for a job.

I agree with Mr. White: a solid pistol shooter that takes decisive action is going to seriously harsh the vibe of a previously unencumbered/unstressed rifle-wielding douche.


From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba

As Jack says the best way to win is kill the bad guy before he gets you.

Move fast shoot straight.

If you are pinned you are dead, as you don't have any overwatch.

[Mr_White]

As Jack says the best way to win is kill the bad guy before he gets you.

Move fast shoot straight.

If you are pinned you are dead, as you don't have any overwatch.

Hell yes.

Personally, I think shooting accurately under pressure combined with solo fire and maneuver can be enormously powerful. It's always a roll of the dice to a degree, but I think resounding success can be snatched from the jaws of disaster with that kind of recipe executed with aggressive precision.

[UNK]

Reaction is based on the environment in which it occurs. School hallways, the mall, a theatre, a large concert style seating arrangement Starbucks.
Move and shoot may not be advisable in every scenario. With an elevated position and a 180 degree view getting hunkered down and locked into a tight position might be just as advisable as moving.

[Mr_White]

Reaction is based on the environment in which it occurs. School hallways, the mall, a theatre, a large concert style seating arrangement Starbucks.
Move and shoot may not be advisable in every scenario. With an elevated position and a 180 degree view getting hunkered down and locked into a tight position might be just as advisable as moving.

Agreed. Putting bullets in the target is what needs to happen. Marksmanship capability is the core of that. When the shooting problem initially exceeds that capability, maneuver (where feasible) can bring the problem within the range of our marksmanship capability.

[Mr_White]

I'm not much of a rifle shooter, but I've been enjoying this discussion and exploration we have been doing on this subject. I thought it would be fun to try a closer range test of carbine vs. pistol. Since I've shot it plenty of times with pistol, I decided to use the IDPA Classifier.

I started out pretty tentative on the first string (no warm up.) After that I got a little more aggressive on the gun, but you can see there is lots and lots of room to do it better and I still got tentative at times as I dealt with less familiar handling, sights, and recoil. For the context we are focused on, I don't mind that I'm not great at shooting a rifle - intuitively it feels more relevant to the discussion, actually. I feel like with a few hundred rounds of practice, I'd get sharper in a hurry as I would presumably learn to better apply the marksmanship and handling skills I've developed with the pistol, to the rifle. I might just do that and start shooting rifles a little more.

Started all strings with safety off, since starting safety on is burdensome on an AK and I don't think any terrorist or active shooter is going to concern themselves with this.

In the context of the IDPA Classifier, the rifle has a huge time advantage starting from ready, vs. the pistol starting holstered. IMHO, that may or may not be representative of reality, depending on the exact physical circumstances in a given event. For most people on the Classifier though, that's about one second per string in favor of the rifle.

All the strings involving reloads had really sucky times with the AK. They are not especially slick to reload and I am not well-practiced at it right now either. I see it as a reinforcement of the idea that it may be a good time to engage or maneuver when the person with the rifle is reloading.

There is a lot of movement in the sights, and it's movement I'm not very used to. It reminds me how powerful a thing (mentally, visually) it is with a handgun to have a grip/platform that confines the gun to predictable up and down movement of the front sight. I'm sure being able to drive the gun and stay on the sights like that is similarly powerful with a rifle, in terms of accuracy and speed.

I did have a couple decisions to make on how to best translate the IDPA Classifier to rifle on the strong hand and support hand only strings. On the SHO string at 7 yards, I decided to use two hands on the gun, but from more of an underarm assault position. Got a bunch of points down on Stage One from misses shooting that way, and also on the support side string. When I got to the ten yard SHO string on Stage Two, I decided to try another way and I did actually shoot the AK strong hand only, which was kind of fun and amusing.

It felt easier to hit well at 20 yards with the AK, but it's not like I can't do that with a pistol too.

This was an enjoyable thing to try.

Basically, I was about 50% slower with the AK than I am with a G34. That 50% time difference also is inclusive of the advantage the rifle enjoys starting from ready over the pistol starting from the holster, which means the time gap in the actual shooting is even greater. Accuracy was similar between the AK and G34, if we ignore the misses I shot with the AK from the support side and from the underarm assault position. If we leave those in there, I shot about two to three times as many points down with the AK as I typically do with the G34. I'm sure the accuracy and speed gap in favor of the pistol would be narrowed with a better handling and shooting rifle (like an AR with red dot), and/or if I practiced up with whatever rifle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riwNLXIPlyw

[JHC]

SHO! LOL

Great stuff. I really detest AKs compared to a nice AR carbine. That's just my bias.

[Failure2Stop]

Hell yes.

Personally, I think shooting accurately under pressure combined with solo fire and maneuver can be enormously powerful. It's always a roll of the dice to a degree, but I think resounding success can be snatched from the jaws of disaster with that kind of recipe executed with aggressive precision.
"Aggressive precision" is what I refer to as the core of efficient gunfighting.

From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff

[John Hearne]

I did have a couple decisions to make on how to best translate the IDPA Classifier to rifle on the strong hand and support hand only strings. On the SHO string at 7 yards, I decided to use two hands on the gun, but from more of an underarm assault position. Got a bunch of points down on Stage One from misses shooting that way, and also on the support side string. When I got to the ten yard SHO string on Stage Two, I decided to try another way and I did actually shoot the AK strong hand only, which was kind of fun and amusing.


When I've shot the local IPDA matches with my AR, I run the gun SHO or WHO as dictated by the COF. I just keep the rifle mounted on my shoulder and only use the specified hand.

[JAD]

With respect to the power thing, an aspect of it to consider is that it might change the pace and nature of the fight. I am currently training to shoot until the target changes. If I'm shooting a carbine that should happen faster -- more terminal effect, and maybe more importantly the rounds I place are likely to be more precise, especially if I'm moving. I suppose that does a few things to the engagement -- I would be much more confident in shooting on the move and applying boarding house rules.

Just a thought, not sure if it adds much to the discussion, and really just makes me want to carry a carbine around all the time.

[MVS]

So I put my money where my mouth is today. I ran the IDPA classifier with my G19 and my Carbine. Let me start by saying two things. 1) I thought I was becoming a competent shooter, however, actually running a course that covers a somewhat wide range of skills shows your weaknesses. 2) SCREW "tactical"/reloads with retention. I am more and more of the opinion that these are for admin work only. They hurt my time with the pistol, and killed it with the carbine. Okay, now that that is out of the way.

I will give a breakdown in my training journal but the highlights are, 98.05 seconds with the pistol, and 93.85 seconds with the carbine. No laughing allowed. I was much faster shooting with the carbine on most strings and definitely more accurate. I was 14 down with the pistol and only 3 down with the carbine. One thing that killed me on the carbine run was a 8 second reload on string 1 of stage 3. ugh!

I think I am probably more typical than Mr. White. Nowhere near as good with a pistol, but probably a little more practiced with the long gun plus what I was shooting (red dot equipped AR) was much easier to use for something like this than the AK. FWIW

[Mr_White]

Totally cool, thanks for doing that!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think as we see more reports is that while carbines might be better, handguns are not an order of magnitude poorer in the IDPA range. I find this interesting after following Internet threads that seem to think that in the rampage/terrorist situations, you are truly helpless with the handgun.

There is an attack on the skills issue for concealed carriers. Here's a sarcastic article by someone at UT Austin, mocking being a concealed carrier by TX standards :
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/is-this-really-how-you-get-your-gun.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

This what I said on another forum:


Another interesting comment from a survivor of Virginia Tech. He is not overly sympathetic to guns but is mixed in his views about carry and whether it would help.

One thing he said was:

Quote:
And while I personally think there is no state with a concealed-carry training system that would prepare you for a close-quarters, live-fire combat scenario like I experienced, having some semblance of being able to point a gun down a range and hit a target is better than no training whatsoever.
http://chronicle.com/article/A-Virgi...or-Puts/234329

The context is discussing whether the argument by some campus carry advocates who say that having a trained person would be a good thing vs. the 'constitutional carry' folks.

I have heard this myself. There is a fear that the untrained would be useless and in fact dangerous. There is a natural prejudice against killing an innocent even to save others - the Trolley car problem.

While we might on a civil rights position not want a training mandate, it is clear to me that if I were to argue that I should carry on campus - I would like to argue that I tried to a reasonable level to be competent.

Thus, denial of the need for competency doesn't help. I pointed out that folks seem to think a gun fight is easy but Averi's figures dispute that. I just had a friend say that you don't need to train to shoot close up. But that doesn't seem to be supported. In a critical incident (as compared to shooing away a mugger), it would seem more relevant.
__________________

Thus, being able to say that you can influence a critical incident with a handgun is important info to have.

[Kevin B.]

I view using a pistol to respond in an active shooter/terrorist incident through the lense of trying to solve what is a rifle/carbine problem with a pistol. As a result I decided to do just that.

The CoF I selected was the MEU(SOC) M4A1 Qualification Course. I selected it because it is a CoF that represents a reasonable difficult standard and requires engagements from 50-3 yards which I feel is representative of the distances one might see in an active shooter/terrorist event.

I shot the MEU(SOC) M4A1 Qualifcation at the end of my practice session. I used a GEN 4 G17 with an X200 in a Comp-tac OWB concealed under a flannel shirt and a Colt 6920 w/Aimpoint Comp M4 on USPSA targets. All strings started with the pistol concealed, hands at my sides. With the rifle, I started in a low ready, muzzle depressed 45 degrees. I forgot a magazine pouch for the rifle so I reloaded from my pocket.

It is worth noting that I have not done any significant shooting with a rifle since April of this year. "Warm-up" today consisted of shooting two 5-round groups to refine my zero at 50 yards. I have also not done any shooting on the move in over a year and it showed.

I scored 2 points for As, 1 for B/C and nothing for Ds or worse. Overtime shots deducted my best two hits.

Results below.

50 Yards- Pair standing/kneeling/prone; Par 10 seconds
Pistol: 13.00; 2A, 4C- 2 shots overtime
Rifle: 9.26; 5A, 1C

Run from 50-25 yard line; Pair standing/kneeling; Par 11 seconds
Pistol: 11.68; 2A, 1C, 1D- 1 shot overtime
Rifle: 9.03; 4A

25 Yards- Head shot; Par 2 seconds
Pistol: 1.88; 1A :cool:
Rifle; 1.83; 1A

25-15 Yards shooting on the move- Pair; Par 5 seconds
Pistol: 4.93; 1A, 1C
Rifle: 3.30; 2A

15 Yards- Pair; Par 1.5
Pistol: 1.84; 2A
Rifle: 1.37; 2A

15-10 Yards shooting on the move- Failure Drill; Par 4 seconds
Pistol: 4.58; 1A, 1B, 1C
Rifle: 3.40; 2A, 1B

10-5 Yards shooting on the move- Failure Drill; Par 3.5 seconds
Pistol: 2.82; 3A
Rifle: 1.99; 3A

7-3 Yards shooting on the move- Failure Drill; Par 3 seconds
Pistol: 2.54; 2A, 1B
Rifle: 1.83; 3A

50 Yards- Pair standing on Target #1, reload, Pair kneeling on Target #2; Par 11 seconds
Pistol:9.84; 1A, 3C
Rifle: 9.03; 4A

25-15 Yards shooting on the move- Pair to each target; Par 6 seconds
Pistol: 5.24; 1A, 3C
Rifle: 5.13; 4A

15 Yards- Pair to each target; Par 3.5 seconds
Pistol:3.43; 3A, 1C
Rifle: 2.66; 4A

15-10 Yards shooting on the move- Pair to each; Par 4 seconds
Pistol: 4.31; 2A, 2C- one shot over time
Rifle: 3.45; 4A

10 Yards- Pair to each target; Par 3 seconds
Pistol: 2.77; 3A,1C
Rifle: 1.77; 4A

10-3 Yards shooting on the move- Failure Drill on each target; Par 5 seconds
Pistol: 3.99; 5A, 1B
Rifle: 4.63; 5A, 1B

I calculated my score using the pistol to be a 68/100. With the rifle I shot a 97/100.

Afterward, I had a few 5.56mm rounds left over so I shot Front Sight (USPSA Classifier CM 99-23). In my opinion, this classifier has a high degree of relevance to the the type of shooting we see in an active shooter/terrorist incident.

Facing down-range: 1.98 (.50, .18, .47, .18, .46, .19); 5A, 1C
Facing up-range: 2.04(.58, .17, .46, .16, .51, .16); 6A

Total time: 4.02
Total points: 58
HF: 14.42 (99.57%)
Open High Hit Factor: 14.49 (100%)

Observations

Reality got in the way. The wind picked up on the range causing my targets to move back and forth. That movement could cause about a 2" vertical shift in where the round struck. Cost me a couple of A's. Additionally, I slipped on a piece of brass during a string which cost me time an an easy A.
I need to contextualize my distance shooting. A-zone hits at 50 yards are not normally very difficult for me. I knew the time standards would be difficult to meet (they were) but I thought my hits would be better.
Working from the 25-yard line and in I was able to get reasonably good hits under par. Not necessarily happy with the hits but I though I did pretty well. I had a lot of close C's. I felt pretty good about meeting reasonably difficult rifle standards with a pistol.
Performance-wise there is no question the rifle was better both from a speed and accuracy standpoint in my hands even though I was shooting a fairly relaxed pace. I was able to beat my pistol performance almost every time and I was able to turn in a GM-level performance on a USPSA classifier with it.

[Gray222]

"Aggressive precision" is what I refer to as the core of efficient gunfighting.

From Tapatalk:
Jack Leuba
Knight's Armament Company: Military/Govt Product Liaison
F2S Consulting: Director of Shooting Stuff

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e6/e2/bd/e6e2bd42e35da7f233b89849160e2a61.jpg

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I view using a pistol to respond in an active shooter/terrorist incident through the lense of trying to solve what is a rifle/carbine problem with a pistol. As a result I decided to do just that.

If you are teaching in a large lecture hall, at a party or in the mall - you might not have an M4 with you. Thus, can one solve the problem with something like a Glock 19? That's relevant to the civilian discussion - esp. for the crowd that sees itself as helpless. That there is a significant performance difference makes sense but is the difference enough that you are ineffectual in the classic rampages?

Great data!

[JHC]

I view using a pistol to respond in an active shooter/terrorist incident through the lense of trying to solve what is a rifle/carbine problem with a pistol. As a result I decided to do just that.

The CoF I selected was the MEU(SOC) M4A1 Qualification Course. I selected it because it is a CoF that represents a reasonable difficult standard and requires engagements from 50-3 yards which I feel is representative of the distances one might see in an active shooter/terrorist event.

I shot the MEU(SOC) M4A1 Qualifcation at the end of my practice session. I used a GEN 4 G17 with an X200 in a Comp-tac OWB concealed under a flannel shirt and a Colt 6920 w/Aimpoint Comp M4 on USPSA targets. All strings started with the pistol concealed, hands at my sides. With the rifle, I started in a low ready, muzzle depressed 45 degrees. I forgot a magazine pouch for the rifle so I reloaded from my pocket.

It is worth noting that I have not done any significant shooting with a rifle since April of this year. "Warm-up" today consisted of shooting two 5-round groups to refine my zero at 50 yards. I have also not done any shooting on the move in over a year and it showed.

I scored 2 points for As, 1 for B/C and nothing for Ds or worse. Overtime shots deducted my best two hits.

Results below.

50 Yards- Pair standing/kneeling/prone; Par 10 seconds
Pistol: 13.00; 2A, 4C- 2 shots overtime
Rifle: 9.26; 5A, 1C

Run from 50-25 yard line; Pair standing/kneeling; Par 11 seconds
Pistol: 11.68; 2A, 1C, 1D- 1 shot overtime
Rifle: 9.03; 4A

25 Yards- Head shot; Par 2 seconds
Pistol: 1.88; 1A :cool:
Rifle; 1.83; 1A

25-15 Yards shooting on the move- Pair; Par 5 seconds
Pistol: 4.93; 1A, 1C
Rifle: 3.30; 2A

15 Yards- Pair; Par 1.5
Pistol: 1.84; 2A
Rifle: 1.37; 2A

15-10 Yards shooting on the move- Failure Drill; Par 4 seconds
Pistol: 4.58; 1A, 1B, 1C
Rifle: 3.40; 2A, 1B

10-5 Yards shooting on the move- Failure Drill; Par 3.5 seconds
Pistol: 2.82; 3A
Rifle: 1.99; 3A

7-3 Yards shooting on the move- Failure Drill; Par 3 seconds
Pistol: 2.54; 2A, 1B
Rifle: 1.83; 3A

50 Yards- Pair standing on Target #1, reload, Pair kneeling on Target #2; Par 11 seconds
Pistol:9.84; 1A, 3C
Rifle: 9.03; 4A

25-15 Yards shooting on the move- Pair to each target; Par 6 seconds
Pistol: 5.24; 1A, 3C
Rifle: 5.13; 4A

15 Yards- Pair to each target; Par 3.5 seconds
Pistol:3.43; 3A, 1C
Rifle: 2.66; 4A

15-10 Yards shooting on the move- Pair to each; Par 4 seconds
Pistol: 4.31; 2A, 2C- one shot over time
Rifle: 3.45; 4A

10 Yards- Pair to each target; Par 3 seconds
Pistol: 2.77; 3A,1C
Rifle: 1.77; 4A

10-3 Yards shooting on the move- Failure Drill on each target; Par 5 seconds
Pistol: 3.99; 5A, 1B
Rifle: 4.63; 5A, 1B

I calculated my score using the pistol to be a 68/100. With the rifle I shot a 97/100.

Afterward, I had a few 5.56mm rounds left over so I shot Front Sight (USPSA Classifier CM 99-23). In my opinion, this classifier has a high degree of relevance to the the type of shooting we see in an active shooter/terrorist incident.

Facing down-range: 1.98 (.50, .18, .47, .18, .46, .19); 5A, 1C
Facing up-range: 2.04(.58, .17, .46, .16, .51, .16); 6A

Total time: 4.02
Total points: 58
HF: 14.42 (99.57%)
Open High Hit Factor: 14.49 (100%)

Observations

Reality got in the way. The wind picked up on the range causing my targets to move back and forth. That movement could cause about a 2" vertical shift in where the round struck. Cost me a couple of A's. Additionally, I slipped on a piece of brass during a string which cost me time an an easy A.
I need to contextualize my distance shooting. A-zone hits at 50 yards are not normally very difficult for me. I knew the time standards would be difficult to meet (they were) but I thought my hits would be better.
Working from the 25-yard line and in I was able to get reasonably good hits under par. Not necessarily happy with the hits but I though I did pretty well. I had a lot of close C's. I felt pretty good about meeting reasonably difficult rifle standards with a pistol.
Performance-wise there is no question the rifle was better both from a speed and accuracy standpoint in my hands even though I was shooting a fairly relaxed pace. I was able to beat my pistol performance almost every time and I was able to turn in a GM-level performance on a USPSA classifier with it.


Great set of datapoints!

All the more, in the trending active shooter situation, "ambush those that mean to ambush you."

[GJM]

Kevin B, nice post! You may be a candidate for Carry Optics. :)

[45dotACP]

I'd be interested to see it run with a hard fit pistol...I know the inherent accuracy of a pistol doesn't mean much, but a gun that can print a 2 inch group at 50 yards could be important when shooting at 50 yards or greater.

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[Kevin B.]

I'd be interested to see it run with a hard fit pistol...I know the inherent accuracy of a pistol doesn't mean much, but a gun that can print a 2 inch group at 50 yards could be important when shooting at 50 yards or greater.

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

I have a couple of those...

Truthfully, I do not think the results would be much different. The accuracy issues at 50 were not the gun. I am sure I would be able to do better after couple more runs.

[eyemahm]

I shot the MEU(SOC) M4A1 Qualifcation at the end of my practice session. I used a GEN 4 G17 with an X200 in a Comp-tac OWB concealed under a flannel shirt and a Colt 6920 w/Aimpoint Comp M4 on USPSA targets. All strings started with the pistol concealed, hands at my sides. With the rifle, I started in a low ready, muzzle depressed 45 degrees. I forgot a magazine pouch for the rifle so I reloaded from my pocket.


Great set of datapoints! Thanks for doing this, KevinB. This seems like an appropriate choice for a pistol and rifle qual, and though I don't have much personal doubt as to which weapon system would give me the warmest fuzzies in a serious altercation, I'd still like to try this myself to see how I fare with each system.

A question -
How did you decide on start positions?

It seems like drawing from concealment with the pistol vs using the low ready with the rifle would put the pistol at a disadvantage. If the goal was a fair comparison of ready positions, I'd think the pistol low ready would be best. If comparing "carry" positions, I'd consider slinging the rifle across chest muzzle down, with hands at sides analogous to drawing the pistol from concealment with hands at sides.

Then again, I don't know your shooting.. maybe you're faster with a pistol from concealment than from the low ready.

[Kevin B.]

A question -
How did you decide on start positions?

It seems like drawing from concealment with the pistol vs using the low ready with the rifle would put the pistol at a disadvantage. If the goal was a fair comparison of ready positions, I'd think the pistol low ready would be best. If comparing "carry" positions, I'd consider slinging the rifle across chest muzzle down, with hands at sides analogous to drawing the pistol from concealment with hands at sides.

Fair question and an issue I discussed with Mr_White.

Alternate start positions for the rifle were not realistic in my expereince. Starting with the pistol in the ready position was an option. I approached the problem from the perspective that I am essentially using a pistol to solve a rifle problem. The question then became "Where is the pistol most likely to be when the problem begins?" The answer to that question is concealed in the holster, therefore that was the start position I used for the pistol.


Then again, I don't know your shooting.. maybe you're faster with a pistol from concealment than from the low ready.

For reference, there is about a .75 difference between my times to engage a target at 7 yards from concealment with a pistol (~1.25) and a rifle in the low ready (~.50). Best case, I may have picked up two of my over time shots with the pistol had I started from the ready for an adjusted score of 72/100; a relatively insignificant change.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

But yet other gun forums are full of folks who say such pistol usage is impossible unless you are a Seal, SAS, or Shield. Thus, in a critical incident the civilian pistol is useless (may for Timmy Taurus 85 or Carlos Curve). I was thinking about steel challenge and the small targets at 20 to 35 yards translate well to a person at a greater distance.

[UNK]

I Have been looking for and cannot find a ballistics table for pistol based on a 50 yard zero. Does anyone know if there is such an thing?

[BN]

I Have been looking for and cannot find a ballistics table for pistol based on a 50 yard zero. Does anyone know if there is such an thing?

Here it is: http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

Just fill in the blanks. I did a search of bullets to find the ballistic coefficient. Some 9mm's were .155 for a 115 fmj, .141 for 124 HAP, .208 for a 147 Speer.

[Mr_White]

Kevin B.,

Good contribution, thanks for posting that!

The carbine run on Front Sight is also very interesting - have you shot that with a pistol and how did you do? USPSA Classifiers are probably a gold mine for short-form comparisons of accuracy and speed, especially since so many people's pistol scores are available.

[Kevin B.]

The carbine run on Front Sight is also very interesting - have you shot that with a pistol and how did you do? USPSA Classifiers are probably a gold mine for short-form comparisons of accuracy and speed, especially since so many people's pistol scores are available.

I do not have my numbers, but I came in at a little over 80% in Production class- a solid A class run.

[psalms144.1]

A question -
How did you decide on start positions? There's a MEU(SOC) pistol qual as well, in it, all engagements start at ready rifle, and require a transition to a holstered handgun. In that light, I think the ready rifle vs holstered pistol is a pretty fair analysis.

Plus I like the way Kev is thinking on training it the way the pistol is MOST likely to be used in an active threat situation - unless you're a first responder, of course. Then ready pistol would be a better choice, IMHO.

[Mr_White]

I do not have my numbers, but I came in at a little over 80% in Production class- a solid A class run.

Excellent, thanks for the info.

[UNK]

Awesome chart thanks!!


Here it is: http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

Just fill in the blanks. I did a search of bullets to find the ballistic coefficient. Some 9mm's were .155 for a 115 fmj, .141 for 124 HAP, .208 for a 147 Speer.

[Mr_White]

One of the big underlying aspects of this thread is confidence. I started a new thread to see if we can get some discussion going on this larger issue: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?18378-Confidence&

[GJM]

About an hour ago, I stopped by a local gun shop to pick something up. I was just finishing a call, and standing in the parking lot outside finishing up a call, when a truck pulled in to the parking lot. I watched the guy get out, and pull out a SBR sized long gun.

I told my caller I needed to go. Guy has the SBR in his dominant hand, and starts to turn towards me. I note there is a magazine inserted in the firearm. He isn't muzzling me, but at the same time he isn't carrying the firearm as I would expect for "bringing it into the store." I am watching him intently, as he grabs the magazine with his support hand and removes it, while walking towards me and the store.

I can tell it is a CZ Evo with a Sig brace. I said "hey, is that a CZ Evo?" he says "yes." I said "I see you are removing the magazine." He says "yes, but it is loaded, as a gun isn't any good unloaded."

I really wanted to tell him that this wasn't a great way to bring a gun out of a vehicle, in a public area, but I didn't think he would get it. Inside, we had a nice chat about the Evo. I was very happy to be carrying a hi-cap, service pistol.

[Lomshek]

About an hour ago, I stopped by a local gun shop to pick something up. I was just finishing a call, and standing in the parking lot outside finishing up a call, when a truck pulled in to the parking lot. I watched the guy get out, and pull out a SBR sized long gun.

I told my caller I needed to go. Guy has the SBR in his dominant hand, and starts to turn towards me. I note there is a magazine inserted in the firearm. He isn't muzzling me, but at the same time he isn't carrying the firearm as I would expect for "bringing it into the store." I am watching him intently, as he grabs the magazine with his support hand and removes it, while walking towards me and the store.

I can tell it is a CZ Evo with a Sig brace. I said "hey, is that a CZ Evo?" he says "yes." I said "I see you are removing the magazine."
He says "yes, but it is loaded, as a gun isn't any good unloaded."

I really wanted to tell him that this wasn't a great way to bring a gun out of a vehicle, in a public area, but I didn't think he would get it. Inside, we had a nice chat about the Evo. I was very happy to be carrying a hi-cap, service pistol.

A sheeple like you will never understand the sheepdog way of life! :p

[Gray222]

About an hour ago, I stopped by a local gun shop to pick something up. I was just finishing a call, and standing in the parking lot outside finishing up a call, when a truck pulled in to the parking lot. I watched the guy get out, and pull out a SBR sized long gun.

I told my caller I needed to go. Guy has the SBR in his dominant hand, and starts to turn towards me. I note there is a magazine inserted in the firearm. He isn't muzzling me, but at the same time he isn't carrying the firearm as I would expect for "bringing it into the store." I am watching him intently, as he grabs the magazine with his support hand and removes it, while walking towards me and the store.

I can tell it is a CZ Evo with a Sig brace. I said "hey, is that a CZ Evo?" he says "yes." I said "I see you are removing the magazine." He says "yes, but it is loaded, as a gun isn't any good unloaded."

I really wanted to tell him that this wasn't a great way to bring a gun out of a vehicle, in a public area, but I didn't think he would get it. Inside, we had a nice chat about the Evo. I was very happy to be carrying a hi-cap, service pistol.

No blade at 45 degree, shouting commands and shooting wildly?

Fail...

[jthhapkido]

There's a MEU(SOC) pistol qual as well, in it, all engagements start at ready rifle, and require a transition to a holstered handgun. In that light, I think the ready rifle vs holstered pistol is a pretty fair analysis.

Plus I like the way Kev is thinking on training it the way the pistol is MOST likely to be used in an active threat situation - unless you're a first responder, of course. Then ready pistol would be a better choice, IMHO.

Well, it isn't like you'd have a rifle at all unless you were a first responder, yes? While I think that the comparison is useful, it seems to me that you are comparing two dissimilar things, and then (unsurprisingly) getting different results. If the goal was to compare to dissimilar things and see how much difference occurred, knowing that the situation itself is part of that difference, that makes sense. If instead the goal was to compare two different weapons in the same circumstances, then to my mind that test isn't actually doing it.

Sure, a person suddenly thrown into an active shooter situation will (probably) be starting from a holstered concealed pistol. If Kevin meant to compare that to the capabilities of someone (a first responder, for example) armed with a rifle, then yes, that makes sense. Pistol would be concealed, and the rifle would be at low ready.

But instead if he was looking at what difference the weapon makes in similar situations (for example, first responders who only have access to a pistol versus first responders who have access to a patrol rifle), then I'm thinking the comparison won't work, because a first responder (even with only a pistol) will have it out and ready---and that is going to save time for most people. There are a lot of draws in that sequence...

Kevin, were you comparing weapon differences, or situation differences? (If you already answered that somewhere, I apologize for missing it.)

[Mr_White]

A link was posted in another thread to a detailed account of the Deputy Dinkheller murder, which was in part a long vs. short gun event: http://policemarksman.com/2014/06/26/officer-down-slowly-developing-threats-the-kyle-dinkheller-incident/

FWIW, here are the author's comments relevant to this thread:



Safe Distance from Rifles

When confronting an assailant who is armed with a rifle, there is a strong impulse to retreat to a position as far away as possible. This can be dangerous, because rifles have a far greater effective range than handguns. Consequently, if you increase the distance while armed with only a handgun, you severely limit your own ability to get hits while simultaneously enhancing your adversary’s ability to hit you. Conversely, when within effective handgun range, superior long-range accuracy no longer offers any real advantage, and speed becomes the more critical factor. When close enough to obtain reliable hits with your handgun, the handgun’s greater maneuverability is likely to give you the edge on speed, especially when in confined spaces and/or within contact range.

In this case, for example, if Deputy Dinkheller had moved in closer, he would have been in a good position to use pistol fire with great effect as soon as Brannan started to draw the rifle out of the cab. If he had gotten in even closer, he might have even been able to use non-lethal force to stop Brannan before Brannan got ahold of the rifle, which brings to mind another disadvantage of long guns. When within contact range, their length makes them hard to bring into firing position quickly, and the long barrel is easy to grab and/or deflect. Handguns, by contrast, can be quickly drawn and fired from the combat tuck position with little chance of being deflected or grabbed.

This suggestion goes counter to instinct to some extent, and is therefore offered with some reservations. Still, it makes a lot of sense from a tactical perspective, and should be seriously considered. Consideration also should be given to working the tactic into reality-based training scenarios and mental imagery exercises.

[SLG]

With all due respect to the author, that premise is fatally flawed when applied to Deputy Dinkheller. There was no meaningful disparity of force there. The weapons were completely and utterly meaningless. There was a Deputy, unwilling to kill the scumbag that needed killing, and was killed instead. Mindset was the only real issue in that encounter.

[JHC]

With all due respect to the author, that premise is fatally flawed when applied to Deputy Dinkheller. There was no meaningful disparity of force there. The weapons were completely and utterly meaningless. There was a Deputy, unwilling to kill the scumbag that needed killing, and was killed instead. Mindset was the only real issue in that encounter.

I thought the mindset to advance aggressively was that author's main point.

[GJM]

To advance or retreat against a long gun could depend upon the long gun shooter's skill. If the long gun shooter is skilled, advancing might be better, but if the long gun shooter is not, distance could still be your friend?

[LSP552]

To advance or retreat against a long gun could depend upon the long gun shooter's skill. If the long gun shooter is skilled, advancing might be better, but if the long gun shooter is not, distance could still be your friend?

How far away would you have to retreat to make a "safe" distance against a semi/unskilled rifle guy? Retreating without maintaining cover/concealment would give a lot of opportunity to get plinked. How accurate can the skill assessment be when you are ducking bullets, moving, seeing a partial picture, etc.? IMO,there is greater danger in underestimating rather than overestimating your opponent's skill level with a rifle.

There are so many factors that come into play, such as shooter's focus, available cover, concealment, your ability, and bystanders. What is your mission? Are you simply trying to survive or committed to putting rounds into the target at greater risk to yourself?

Lots of things to consider in the heat of the moment.

I agree with SLG's statement about mindset being the deciding factor in the referenced shooting.

[JHC]

To advance or retreat against a long gun could depend upon the long gun shooter's skill. If the long gun shooter is skilled, advancing might be better, but if the long gun shooter is not, distance could still be your friend?

It just sounded roughly analogous to the advice re unarmed combat vs a BG with a club; reducing the advantage of reach by advancing smartly inside the club's range of a focused strike . In this specific case I think the author assessed the BG's "wind up" in retrieving the carbine.


In the context of the thread, supposin' a fellow is plainclothed armed security at a function. Someone matching a profile sets spidey senses off but there is no basis for immediate action. Subject's large coat or dufflebag may mean long gun. Slide in close or move back as far as possible?

[Kevin B.]

When confronting an assailant who is armed with a rifle, there is a strong impulse to retreat to a position as far away as possible. This can be dangerous, because rifles have a far greater effective range than handguns. Consequently, if you increase the distance while armed with only a handgun, you severely limit your own ability to get hits while simultaneously enhancing your adversary’s ability to hit you. Conversely, when within effective handgun range, superior long-range accuracy no longer offers any real advantage, and speed becomes the more critical factor. When close enough to obtain reliable hits with your handgun, the handgun’s greater maneuverability is likely to give you the edge on speed, especially when in confined spaces and/or within contact range.

That is a pretty superficial analysis that includes some demonstrably false assumptions.

[JHC]

That is a pretty superficial analysis that includes some demonstrably false assumptions.

Would those include:
1. implied lack of maneuverability of a short light carbine
2. longer range enhancing the rifleman's ability to hit
3. inability to hit effectively with a handgun at longish ranges

Agree, he is broadly generalizing whereas when he focused on the specific incident of the shooter acting out, then returning to retrieve the carbine - there was a decisive moment to seize initiative or defer. Not sure what that had to do with the weapon type.

[Kevin B.]

Would those include:
1. implied lack of maneuverability of a short light carbine
2. longer range enhancing the rifleman's ability to hit
3. inability to hit effectively with a handgun at longish ranges

Those as well as the notion that the effectiveness of a pistol and rifle are inversely proportionate based upon the range. Or that the rifle-armed assailant will not move to maintain a positional advantage.

ETA: The focus on a single aspect of the fight as the determining factor of the outcome.

Of course, how the officer is supposed to coveniently close the distance to the point where he is able to employ "the handgun’s greater maneuverability" and gain "the edge on speed" in the face of the rifle-armed assailant was conveniently ommitted...


...there was a decisive moment to seize initiative or defer. Not sure what that had to do with the weapon type.

Me either. As SLG pointed out, in the case cited it was an issue of mindset.

[Mr_White]

What is your mission? Are you simply trying to survive or committed to putting rounds into the target at greater risk to yourself?

This is really important and drives a lot of stuff downstream of this decision.

[JHC]

A link was posted in another thread to a detailed account of the Deputy Dinkheller murder, which was in part a long vs. short gun event: http://policemarksman.com/2014/06/26/officer-down-slowly-developing-threats-the-kyle-dinkheller-incident/

FWIW, here are the author's comments relevant to this thread:


Note that this is a long article and this is but one short section of it. Most of the analysis section deals with mindset related topics.

I think a key issue that could be examined a little more is the oft repeated dictum that "distance favors the good guy".

This author is questioning that. But apart from some of his mistakes in characterizing CQB with a carbine, what about that rule of thumb?

If the attacker draws a small pistol and there is time or opportunity to create distance the dictum seems to hold in general.

If the attacker begins to unlimber a rifle, and there is an opportunity for any movement at all; would closing the distance with precision fire be more appropriate?

I thought that is what the author was driving at.

[Mr_White]

Note that this is a long article and this is but one short section of it. Most of the analysis section deals with mindset related topics.

Indeed. I posted that part of it only because it was attempting to speak so directly to long vs. short gun. Whether we agree with the author or not, I wanted to get it in here.


I think a key issue that could be examined a little more is the oft repeated dictum that "distance favors the good guy".

This author is questioning that. But apart from some of his mistakes in characterizing CQB with a carbine, what about that rule of thumb?

If the attacker draws a small pistol and there is time or opportunity to create distance the dictum seems to hold in general.

If the attacker begins to unlimber a rifle, and there is an opportunity for any movement at all; would closing the distance with precision fire be more appropriate?

I thought that is what the author was driving at.

I think that's what he was driving at too - but it's somewhat specific to the pistol person's intentions, which was brought up by LSP552. Suppose we are a more average pistol shot, AND we are personally committed to stopping a rifle-armed assailant quickly, even at greater risk to ourselves. Closing distance to where we are able to make effective hits with that handgun might be what's needed. And we might also need either the luck of the long gun being down due to accessing/loading/reloading/malfunction, or else the tactics/environment/aggressiveness to create the opportunity to close distance. Suppose we are a really good (accurate) pistol shot though - maybe getting close only takes up time and increases risk by making it easier for everyone to land hits. And if we are specifically trying to get away as opposed to stopping the threat, then it becomes more of a moot point unless the exit is blocked by the assailant(s).

[Wondering Beard]

I don't mean to be dismissive but could we not summarize all this by saying: the objective along with the capabilities of the combatants with their tools at hand and the terrain will drive the tactics.

I am right now in a part of the world that has suffered badly recently from terrorist attacks and all I've got to change any outcome is a few knives. A big part of my tactics have already been decided for me; if I can't run, I have to get real close.

We make do with what we have.

[abu fitna]

With all due respect to the author, that premise is fatally flawed when applied to Deputy Dinkheller. There was no meaningful disparity of force there. The weapons were completely and utterly meaningless. There was a Deputy, unwilling to kill the scumbag that needed killing, and was killed instead. Mindset was the only real issue in that encounter.

I believe Southnarc routinely teaches a good rifle versus pistol encounter in his AMIS class that is a much better example. Wihout stealing his material, distance and angles counted a lot here, along with aggression. If I recall correctly, this was a California OIS.

I also believe there was second applicable OIS out of LA a while back where officers engaged at surprise an adversary running an AK from a vehicle incident.

Either one of these cases could easily represent the dynamics of meeting engagement during an active shooter event.

[Mr_White]

I'm not much of a rifle shooter,

You know, just to reiterate it. ;) I am even less practiced with the AR than AK. But, Santa put a Aimpoint CompM3 in my stocking, so I have finally joined the 20th century and have a dot on my AR now. Totally cool! Got it zeroed yesterday and immediately put it to work for a try at the IDPA Classifier with what should be a better-shooting and handling rifle than the AK, even if I'm still a gimp with it. Rifles are definitely fun!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfgbccncA1A

[Mr_White]

Someone I know, who is a much much better rifle shooter than I, shot the IDPA Classifier with an AR. He said:

"I used my Rock River 16" barrel with a Vortex 1-4 pst scope to do the idpa classifier and got a score of 94.21. My best with pistol was ~152.
However, I used low ready instead of in-the-holster, used off hand left with both hands instead of single left hand. I did use strong hand only which is where I lost almost all my points and time. Pistol ~ 2lbs vs AR ~10lbs.
I fired a few cqb rds pre-classifier 15-20rds.
I don't feel like I am at my peak right now. I shot a progressive "Bill drill" and got 6rds off in 2 secs. I used to get 8rds in 2 secs. It took me 2.38 to get 8 in on Wednesday.
In conclusion: Not sure how much the non-holstering contributed to the better time. Rapid fire seemed quicker especially at the closer ranges. Overall it was fun and I will test again in the summer after a carbine training class I plan to attend."

[Talionis]

I've been doing a little practice with my 9mm AR getting ready for some fun in the new Pistol Caliber Carbine division, which I plan on using as an excuse to get somewhat decent at shooting a rifle. I had a chance to run a couple side by side comparisons between pistol and carbine at the range today, and thought I'd share.

Bill drills:
Pistol, my average for a 7 yard Bill today was 1.95. I can push it to 1.8 and under, but start throwing C's.
Rifle, my average was 1.4. I didn't push speed hard enough to start dropping C's, so I'm sure I can get the time significantly lower than that with some practice.

Speed shoot:
Setup was a 20 yard plate rack, 5 yard open target, and 17 yard partial USPSA target with a no-shoot covering 2/3 of the A zone. Pretty wide transitions, but no reloads. 50 points available. I only ran this course a couple times each with rifle and pistol, but found the results illuminating.

My average hit factor with pistol was 7.8, which translates to a time of about 6.4 seconds while shooting all A's.
My average hit factor with the rifle was 12.2, which translates into a time of roughly 4.1 seconds, all A's.

I am pretty good with a pistol, and a relative novice with a rifle. I do think there is a lot of carryover from pistol shooting when it comes to shooting a rifle effectively, but that is a significant difference.

Before anyone gets wound around the axle by the fact that this was done with a 9mm AR instead of a "real" rifle, consider this. I, and many others, find that the 9mm AR has more muzzle movement than a correctly tuned AR. It is definitely easier to shoot faster with a tuned 5.56 AR than this gun.

[SLG]

I have to say, I've never found a 9mm carbine to recoil more than a 5.56, and have never heard that from anyone until this forum mentioned it.

Nevertheless, I do not mention that to discount the difference you are seeing in anyway at all. I'm also not surprised that you are a good pistol shooter and a new rifle shooter (paraphrasing) and yet are still seeing these differences. It's one reason I found the timmie aspect of this thread so amusing. Pistols are not for fighting by choice, regardless of skill.

As an anecdote to support your experience, I took TLG to the range for about 2 hours, on two occasions, and taught him to shoot his carbine. At the time, it was a 9" 552. A real one:-) This was 10 years ago or more now, and he was a very good pistol shooter. After a few hours of dedicated drills, we spent the next week at a fairly high level carbine class together. He had never done anything like that before, but beat almost everyone else in the class, and by a fair margin.

Done correctly, there is a huge overlap in skillset, which is why top units have often spent as much time as they have on their handgun skills. Yes, they are harder to shoot and take more time and effort. All that time and effort also builds your carbine skills though.

[GJM]

I have to say, I've never found a 9mm carbine to recoil more than a 5.56, and have never heard that from anyone until this forum mentioned it.

Nevertheless, I do not mention that to discount the difference you are seeing in anyway at all. I'm also not surprised that you are a good pistol shooter and a new rifle shooter (paraphrasing) and yet are still seeing these differences. It's one reason I found the timmie aspect of this thread so amusing. Pistols are not for fighting by choice, regardless of skill.

As an anecdote to support your experience, I took TLG to the range for about 2 hours, on two occasions, and taught him to shoot his carbine. At the time, it was a 9" 552. A real one:-) This was 10 years ago or more now, and he was a very good pistol shooter. After a few hours of dedicated drills, we spent the next week at a fairly high level carbine class together. He had never done anything like that before, but beat almost everyone else in the class, and by a fair margin.

Done correctly, there is a huge overlap in skillset, which is why top units have often spent as much time as they have on their handgun skills. Yes, they are harder to shoot and take more time and effort. All that time and effort also builds your carbine skills though.

I don't find this at all surprising. If you can shoot a handgun well, after being shown the manipulations, you can shoot a carbine, but the opposite doesn't necessarily hold true, as the pistol requires you to work the trigger without the stability the long gun provides.

I wouldn't describe the 9mm AR recoil as being more than 5.56 in the classic "recoils more sense," but rather recoils/cycles slower. My "regular" AR carbines seem to shoot arrays faster than 9mm, but my steel targets thank me for shooting the slower 9.

BTW, my wife recently showed me some vid of Talionis shooting the VP9 at a match, and he is a real up and comer.

[Talionis]

I have to say, I've never found a 9mm carbine to recoil more than a 5.56, and have never heard that from anyone until this forum mentioned it.

Nevertheless, I do not mention that to discount the difference you are seeing in anyway at all. I'm also not surprised that you are a good pistol shooter and a new rifle shooter (paraphrasing) and yet are still seeing these differences. It's one reason I found the timmie aspect of this thread so amusing. Pistols are not for fighting by choice, regardless of skill.

As an anecdote to support your experience, I took TLG to the range for about 2 hours, on two occasions, and taught him to shoot his carbine. At the time, it was a 9" 552. A real one:-) This was 10 years ago or more now, and he was a very good pistol shooter. After a few hours of dedicated drills, we spent the next week at a fairly high level carbine class together. He had never done anything like that before, but beat almost everyone else in the class, and by a fair margin.

Done correctly, there is a huge overlap in skillset, which is why top units have often spent as much time as they have on their handgun skills. Yes, they are harder to shoot and take more time and effort. All that time and effort also builds your carbine skills though.

I definitely agree that there is a huge overlap. While I don't think a superb pistol shooter will instantly be a rock-star with a rifle without some familiarization practice; I think with even very brief quality instruction like I'm sure TLG got from you, or some thoughtful practice on one's own that pistol shooter can be pretty dominant with a rifle in a very short amount of time.

My working theory for pistol vs. rifle has pretty much always been that whatever my pistol skill at a given time, I could pick up a rifle and shoot at least as fast and accurately with it, if not faster. I was a little surprised at how much of a difference there was. The brief comparison was mostly on targets that favor a rifle like 20 yard plate racks etc., but on reviewing the timer the rifle was significantly faster from nearly contact distance on out at the same or better accuracy levels. The difference in hit factor from rifle to pistol equated to the difference between a national champion and a random C class shooter running a classifier. That's a pretty big force multiplier there.

Go figure, rifles are better at shooting than pistols;)

One point of clarification. I don't think the 9mm actually has more recoil than a 5.56. I do perceive that it has more dot movement than the 3gun AR's I've shot from time to time. Of course those were 18" rifle gas guns with low mass internals and obnoxious comps, but it was ridiculous how easily one could hammer out repeated A zone hits at what most consider long pistol range. I think I'll notice pretty similar dot movement between my Colt 16" carbine and the 9mm AR, but testing that hasn't exactly been a priority.

[SLG]

One point of clarification. I don't think the 9mm actually has more recoil than a 5.56. I do perceive that it has more dot movement than the 3gun AR's I've shot from time to time. Of course those were 18" rifle gas guns with low mass internals and obnoxious comps, but it was ridiculous how easily one could hammer out repeated A zone hits at what most consider long pistol range. I think I'll notice pretty similar dot movement between my Colt 16" carbine and the 9mm AR, but testing that hasn't exactly been a priority.

Copy. I've shot those types a small amount, but my standard M4 is a carbine gas system and a flash hider. I am comparing that to a Colt submachine gun or MP-5 similarly set up.

[Talionis]

I don't find this at all surprising. If you can shoot a handgun well, after being shown the manipulations, you can shoot a carbine, but the opposite doesn't necessarily hold true, as the pistol requires you to work the trigger without the stability the long gun provides.

I wouldn't describe the 9mm AR recoil as being more than 5.56 in the classic "recoils more sense," but rather recoils/cycles slower. My "regular" AR carbines seem to shoot arrays faster than 9mm, but my steel targets thank me for shooting the slower 9.

BTW, my wife recently showed me some vid of Talionis shooting the VP9 at a match, and he is a real up and comer.

Agree with all this. I've definitely had to teach a number of competent rifle shooters very rudimentary things about how to hit stuff with a pistol.

Also: creeper;)

[Talionis]

Copy. I've shot those types a small amount, but my standard M4 is a carbine gas system and a flash hider. I am comparing that to a Colt submachine gun or MP-5 similarly set up.

I pretty much figured that was your context. I think the biggest difference may be the presence of a comp and enough gas to drive it. I'd venture that without that, any of the long guns you mention would behave fairly similarly. Does that match up with your experience? I'm a little curious if the MP-5 might have a slight edge over the Colt SMG though. (I may be slightly biased.)

[SLG]

I pretty much figured that was your context. I think the biggest difference may be the presence of a comp and enough gas to drive it. I'd venture that without that, any of the long guns you mention would behave fairly similarly. Does that match up with your experience? I'm a little curious if the MP-5 might have a slight edge over the Colt SMG though. (I may be slightly biased.)

That sounds about right. I have comps on some of my guns and they are pretty flat. However, I am pretty recoil insensitive, in the sense that guns that recoil little all seem similar to me, so I would have to do a side by side comparison to really say much. The Colt SMG's really shoot nicely, imo, but the test is full auto, and an MP-5 definitely handles easier in full auto. An MP-5SD3 is perhaps the most fun you can have until moving up to an M2.

[Talionis]

Makes sense, thanks. I hope to get my hands on a real deal MP-5SD some day to play around with.

[psalms144.1]

An MP-5SD3 is perhaps the most fun you can have until moving up to an M2.We have very limited access to SDs, almost all our MP5s and MP5KNs, but I concur with you wholeheartedly. I've shot LOTS and LOTS of FA, and while the Thompson is great from a nostalgia perspective, the Grease Gun's low cyclic rate is a lot of fun to play with, and I will always have an abiding love for my old pig girlfriend the M60, for shoulder fired full auto, the MP5 is hard to beat. And, of course, the M2 is the pinnacle of firearms development, IMHO.

[T.Stahl]

As people are posting data to compare pistols to carbines...
I shot at the county championships last Friday. Targets are five 20cm/8" steel plates at 25m/27yds. You start at 45° low ready or with the stock on the hip. My times for the six series were:

Glock 17L: 15.06 + 12.96 + 13.95 + 9.31 + 10.60 + 11.00 = 72.88sec total
Glock 17L w/ shoulder stock: 6.42 + 7.21 + 5.94 + 7.58 + 6.34 + 5.45 = 38.94sec total
Rossi M92P .44Mag*: 6.20 + 7.06 + 9.50 + 9.13 + 7.22 + 8.94 = 48.05sec total

The Rossi is what I'd consider a suitable/realistic trunk gun. I was shooting 7gr Trailboss behind 240gr bullets, which is closer to .44 Very Special than .44 Magnum.