Carbine vs handgun

[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...ller-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!

[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.