Carbine vs handgun

[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 rifleistol 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.



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!