Carbine vs handgun

[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...ller-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.