How can a handgun compete with a man armed with a rifle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's usually a few B27 targets on the 100 yard line at the range, aiming at the head with a normal sight picture drops the shots right into the chest area of the target.
Click to expand...

THIS^^^^

It all about knowing your holdovers at different distances. While teaching at FS the "Advanced Tactical Handgun" class had a portion that had the students engaging steel silhouettes at 200 and 250 yards.

Most students could get hits at 200 about 90% of the time from a good prone position once they found where to hold.

I hold the top of my front sight on the tgt and lower my rear sight so ithe top of it aligns 1/2 way down the frot sight, so 1/2 a frontsight blade high. With a good trigger press the hits are there

Its not magic to hit at longer ranges. Just a solid grasp of the fundamentals. Google "long range pistol shooting" and the info is pretty amazing. 4-600 yard shots used to be way out there. Nkw it seems like 100 is too far.

The longer shot are possible. The increased distance just means the error is magnified. Minimize the error and you can hit out there
 
The military trains many more people to shoot well each year than I do, so I am QUITE reticent about critiquing their methods. With that disclaimer in place, I think it would be helpful if they would qualify the Maximum Effective Range (MER) of small arms with a percentile of the personnel demonstrating the ability to hit vital areas at that range.

In pharmacology and toxicology, we don't speak of a simple "lethal dose". We speak of a dose sufficient to induce lethality in a certain percentage of the test population, usually 50% (LD50, w/number usually subscript). Sometimes, depending on the substance of interest, an LD90 is used, especially, when determining a therapeutic index (TD90/LD90).

It might be instructive to speak of MERs as MER90s, vs. MER50s, or MER10s.
The M16A2 has a STATED MER of 550m. Is likely higher than 50%, though I doubt as high as 90%. The MER for the M9 pistol probably IS an MER50, not MER90. I would think that these number vary with the M.O.S. of the operators, also. For Seals, Marines, Army Snipers & Delta (if they existed, wink wink), the MER90 for an M16A2 might be closer to 800 yards. For Cooks, Clerks, and Mechanics, it might not exceed 200. I would expect similar results with the M9, and M1911A1. In all my years, I haven't heard anyone who had trouble with the .45 say that the M9 was easier to hit with. It IS a lower-power cartridge, but the M9's ergonomics seem to inhibit good shooting. I've had probably 20 or 30 people not do well with a .45, then pick up a Cz-75 or Browning P-35 and shoot wonderfully with it. Beats me...
 
As an aside, when the Glock 26 first appeared. A black talon, 147g made just 1000fps from the one I had. Tested in ballistic gel. Ugly mess!
 
I am not sure range results or ballistic specs tell us much on this subject. Assuming that the distance involved was within range of the handgun, what would be required is a person who is extremely competent with his gun and has icewater in his or her veins. Not many pistol shooters could remain cool enough to engage a person armed with an automatic weapon and win, even if the only alternative was death.

Jim
 
James K said:
what would be required is a person who is extremely competent with his gun and has icewater in his or her veins.
Click to expand...

Those attributes would be nice to have, but the most important characteristic a pistoleer would need to overcome a rifleman at 100 yards would be pure luck.
 
Everyone seems to think this contest, if you would, between a rifleman, and a pistolere? One on one!

Imagine a CCW in a Mall, 50 yards away from an active shooter, on his own, the rifle bad person.

The armed person, from a distance, not seen yet by the Active Shooter.

So from a solid position, fires two or three rounds, then legs it. Hopefully he is on his own.

The thought of a man on man, just the two individuals, looking at each other?

Not such a good idea. The old saying I adhered to, all my life, if you are in a fair fight? Your tactics suck.
 
brit said:
Everyone seems to think this contest, if you would, between a rifleman, and a pistolere? One on one!
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the premise given the title of the thread:

How can a handgun compete with a man armed with a rifle?

You can come up with an infinite amount of situations in which someone with a pistol or a stick or a rock or no weapon at all triumphs over a rifleman.

They all pretty much come down to hide, then hope he doesn't see you until you can pop out at a close enough range for your available weapon to be effective.

What's your point?
 
Gee, uhm... <looking about> ...where's JohnKSa? Does HE know about all this? Not sure he'd approve of all this improbable shooting!
Click to expand...
It's certainly possible to make good hits on human sized targets at 100 yards with a handgun. It's even possible to do it consistently.

However it's not something that a person is likely to be able to do on command unless they've tried it before. Even someone who has tried it before may not be successful if they've not shot the particular pistol in question at long range.

For one thing, although most pistols are zeroed pretty well for work at ranges inside 15 yards, even small sight adjustment errors at that range can result in significant discrepancies between the point of aim and point of impact at 100 yards. Second, small errors in trigger technique become pretty large at extended ranges.

I had significant problems hitting a human-sized steel target at 100 yards with one of my most accurate full-sized pistols until I finally worked out that I had to hold on the "belt" and on the extreme left side of the target. After I figured that out, it was pretty easy to make hits with only the occasional miss.

On the other hand, standing up and shooting offhand (as I was with the pistol) , I was able to make hits with much better consistency and rapidity at triple the distance with an AK style rifle and open sights.

So one of my most accurate pistols vs. one of my least accurate rifles and the rifle won hands down at triple the distance.

I have tried shooting a pistol at a human-sized target at 300 yards, but at that distance I was only able to score hits every 5-10 rounds or so.

At shorter ranges, the rifle becomes very easy to shoot very rapidly from the hip. At one time I could consistently hit targets only a couple inches wide at 10-15 yards shooting a long gun rapidly from the hip. I've never managed to achieve that level of skill with a handgun even with a good bit of practice.

It's not a foregone conclusion that a pistoleer will lose when pitted against a rifleman, but it is certainly true that the rifleman will have a significant advantage all else being equal. Start adding in more advantages on the side of the rifleman and it becomes a very difficult problem to solve with a pistol.
 
Below 30 yards they're almost as good (well, for a given value of 'almost') with a reasonable level of marksmanship. Now, that isn't that short a distance. Beyond that you're likely to have some cover available in most places, come to think of it.

Sure, 50 yards +, the advantage of the rifle is really big, but... well, a pistol at long range is still better then shouting insults, and a rifle isn't all that easy to conceal.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brit
Everyone seems to think this contest, if you would, between a rifleman, and a pistoleer? One on one!


Yes, that's the premise given the title of the thread:

How can a handgun compete with a man armed with a rifle?

You can come up with an infinite amount of situations in which someone with a pistol or a stick or a rock or no weapon at all triumphs over a rifleman.

They all pretty much come down to hide, then he doesn't see you until you can pop out at a close enough range for your available weapon to be effective.

What's your point?
45_auto is offline Report Post
Click to expand...

My Point? How likely is it, with all of the points, back and forth, that in some area of a Town, or City, this one lonely Rifleman, is paired off, against this single pistol armed person, give me a break.

In every incident, that has happened, the rifle-armed terrorist, or nut case (which most of them are, nuts!) the first clue? BANG/BANG!

If you are the person in the sights of that Rifle, you are most probably, done like dinner.

If that is not the case, and a competent pistol shot, is in the area, with an accurate pistol (Glock 19, with a 4lb trigger, same pistol that has been shot at some distance, for instance) there could be a bullet, aimed at a man sized target, with a rifle, at some extended range, that hits said rifleman, in the throat?

For instance, with Dennis Wxxxxx a good friend (still). Was the RO in an IPSC match, in Ontario. Canada. At this time, we were to a man, armed with very accurate Colt .45s. My pistol was a made in 1913 accurized by Al Dinon, Colt 45, reblued, no idea how it came into Ontario, I bought it from a friend.
The trigger was the best trigger I had ever touched.

One of the stages was a little accuracy portion, 5 rounds total (if you hit the steel head plate first shot) this 6" plate was on a stand, at about 30m?

You started facing the RO, looking at the back of the range, hands at shoulder height. At the beep of the timer, you turned around, and engaged the plate first, when (and IF!) you hit the plate, 4 rounds were fired at an IPSC cardboard target, at 5m.

As soon as I saw the sights, the pistol fired! In fact, it just went off! Dennis said! "that was an AD!"
Yes, it was, but it cleaned the plate right off the stand!

The next 4 shots were in a group, center of the A zone. (at 5m?)

These things happen when you have been shooting for 62 years, more than once, I might add.

The only way this could happen with an active shooter with a Rifle, engaged by a CCW armed Pistol carrier? There would have to be a CCW person there!

Which up to this time, there has not been, here in the USA. Safe Zone's?

A Paster in South Africa once chased several terrorists, armed with AKs, out of his Church. Firing his Chiefs Special, from the pulpit! They never fired a shot, just turned tail, and ran.
 
Last edited:
brit said:
If you are the person in the sights of that Rifle, you are most probably, done like dinner.
Click to expand...

Excellent summation of the answer to the "rifle vs pistol at 100 yards" question.
 
However, and many seem to forget this - in a mass shooting with 100s of people, you may not be in the sights of the gun people.

But they could be in your sights.
 
Wrong X2.

Excellent summation of the answer to the "rifle vs pistol at 100 yards" question.
Click to expand...

The assertion to which this comment pertains addresses one SMALL facet of the entire "aggressor with rifle vs. defender with pistol" equation. It leaves the other salient aspects completely unaddressed. Indeed, it leaves them unMENTIONED. Thus, it is NOT A SUMMATION, it is, at best, an EXCISION. Nice thing to do to malignancies, but not of value in a thoughtful discussion.

Because the statement focuses on the element most attractive to the poster of the quotation above, it is not objective, inclusive, instructive (not much, anyway), nor even salient. It fails MY criteria for "excellent", abysmally. Others may apply their criteria at will.

GLENN E. MEYER raises valid points. I'm not sure that there will ALWAYS be "hundreds" of potential victims in these situations, and since (I thought) we are discussing an aggressor with a rifle against a defender with a pistol at some "greater than usual pistol-distances" range, the population density of defenders won't ever be terribly high.

But because the aggressor "must be right 100% of the time" in deciding who is armed and must be taken out (first), and the defender(s) "must only get it right ONCE (per aggressor)", the odds in favor of the defender(s) may not be what we'd hope for, but neither are they hopeless. The odds of survival for EVERYONE drops precipitously if nobody tries to do anything.
 
Thanks Kosh.

If we set up a showdown at Dodge City out in the open at 100 yards with skilled participants, one with a handgun and the other with a rifle - well, the first person is problematic.

But are we discussing a scenario that a TFL member might find themselves in?

A San Bernadino or Sandy Hook? Are you useless there?

Of course, from times past on TFL - the participant with a Taurus Judge will rule the day (couldn't resist - sorry! Ducking!).
 
As long as the defender is not using the much-maligned .41 Magnum or the .40 S&W, he should be OK, especially if his choice of weapon is a 1911 clone, but not an original US 1911, because they are all shot out and completely useless. He should also avoid the Ruger sixgun in .30 Carbine, because, as everyone knows, the carbine round will not penetrate Chinese Communist, er, I mean, Terrorist, outer clothing.
 
Too many fantasy scenarios here, unless you're a cop.
Click to expand...

How can a handgun compete with a man armed with a rifle?
Click to expand...

It can't.

Might as well plan to give up and die.

Oh, and make fun of anyone who says otherwise. Those poor saps think they can learn something worthwhile about self defense at longer distances using tools they actually carry. They think they can maybe even survive the unthinkable, with decent training and practice and a little bit of luck. What idiots!

Planning to give up is a much better plan than learning how to shoot.

After all, learning to defend yourself costs money and takes work. But planning to die? That doesn't cost anything.

Plus you can make fun of the rubes who have decided that they will do whatever it takes to survive. Those saps! They're every bit as idiotic as Andy Brown. (But, of course, the only reason he survived was because he was a cop. His own personal commitment to good training and regular practice, outside of work hours, had nothing to do with it. Cops are much brighter than civilians, and are the only people who can effectively use guns anyway...)

</sarcasm>

A Paster in South Africa once chased several terrorists, armed with AKs, out of his Church. Firing his Chiefs Special, from the pulpit! They never fired a shot, just turned tail, and ran.
Click to expand...

That was Charl VanWyk, and he wrote about it in his book Shooting Back: the right and duty of self-defence. Good book and a good tale.

pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top