In this post I mention that a lot of the after market gear that is sold to people who are interested in improving the accuracy and range of their handguns is just not suitable for a concealed carry firearm.
Two of my readers, Bob Hawkins and someone who wants to remain anonymous, left comments. They are wondering what my opinion is concerning the effective range of concealed carry handguns.
"What would you say is the maximum range you should worry about when choosing and outfitting a carry gun?"
My opinion is that the handgun you carry with you at all times is intended for emergency use. If there is an unexpected threat that pops up inside of 15 yards, we should plan on engaging. Farther than that is problematic.
Before anyone sits down at their keyboard to pound out an angry Email, let me just say that I am well aware that fast, accurate aimed fire is certainly possible at greater distances. I am also aware that some amazing results have been achieved with handguns at ranges most people would only consider suitable for a shot from a rifle. But there are a few reasons why I'm going to confidently stand by my answer.
All of the people who I have met who are confident of their ability to use their concealed carry gun to prevail in a gunfight at ranges greater than 15 yards (and who have shown the ability to back up their claims) spend an awful lot of time and money developing their skill. They go to the range once a week, they carefully choose their carry gun, and they constantly strive to improve. Most of us just don't have the cash, the time, or the inclination to do the same.
Oh, don't get me wrong. Their skills can be matched by the vast majority of the population if we had the same devotion, time, and money to spend on improving our own abilities. But most of us don't, so we are going to have to make plans around our own set of strengths instead of dreaming of what we would do if we had the chance to develop greater ability.
I think one of the great appeals of the old Man From U.N.C.L.E. handguns was all that crap you could attach to the firearm. (You guys knew I would get around to mentioning those guns sooner or later, didn't you?)
It was a common variety handgun while resting in the shoulder holster of the fictional agents, suitable and ready for close up self defense. But take a few minutes screwing on the barrel extensions, the stock, and the telescopic sight and you would have a firearm that should be able to engage someone equipped with a rifle out to moderate distances.
Most of my readers remember watching that television program when they were kids. Which one of you didn't dream of being able to take cover during an armed encounter, spend a few minutes tricking out the gun, and then use it to save the day?
Anyway, that is just fantasy. In the real world we should plan on engaging an armed attacker at 15 yards or less with our concealed carry handguns. If we can do some good at longer ranges, then great! But I wouldn't count on it.
Comments (7)
I think there's a different point: if a threat is more than fifteen yards away, you probably have an excellent chance hiding or fleeing instead of shooting it out.
Posted by Steven Den Beste | April 17, 2008 12:25 AM
Posted on April 17, 2008 00:25
Umm kind of a moot point; when 21 feet or 7 yards is about the maximum distance you can successfully claim self defense from an attacker and be resonably believed by the police outside of 21 feet the local prosecutor will tell the grand jury that you had a chance to flee. At least that is what I have always been told.
Posted by Chris | April 17, 2008 1:14 AM
Posted on April 17, 2008 01:14
Nowadays law enforcement who really need a "super" pistol would probably go for the MP7 or another firearms that sits between a pistol and SMG.
Posted by Steve Johnson | April 17, 2008 2:48 AM
Posted on April 17, 2008 02:48
You have it exactly! Your concealed handgun is for protection of life from an imminent threat only. Maintaining situational awareness, avoiding a confrontation and escaping the area of a perceived threat without ever having to fire a shot is the goal. All the best thought out plans turn to manure once the first round goes off and everything deteriorates really fast thereafter. Anybody outside sworn law enforcement or active duty military who thinks he's going to stand and fight has been watching too many Rambo movies. Get real.
Posted by ke4sky | April 17, 2008 8:56 AM
Posted on April 17, 2008 08:56
The real question is: at what distance does a sufficient threat exist which warrants armed action to reduce it? That distance will vary based on the type and degree of threat.
I suspect one good way to discover one's effectiveness at distance (eg., how far away one can reliably score good hits) might be to shoot an IPSC handgun match. IPSC rules don't set a maximum shooter-to-target distance; I've shot matches with Pepper poppers at 30 yards and concluded that if I can hit them reliably - and with good shot placement - under the time and movement pressures of a match then 30 yards is not an unreasonable distance for me, with that gun, to attempt threat reduction should one present itself that requires reduction.
I've also taken deer with head shots at 80 yards and made body shots on groundhogs at 110 yards, both with revolvers, but there was no time pressure and neither the groundhogs nor the the deer constituted a "threat requiring reduction." I know I can hit certain targets at certain distances, given the right gun, ammunition, light conditions and time; as a certain fictional Mr. Callahan once said, "a man should know his limits." Knowing what you can hit, under what conditions, at what distances, is useful information.
Posted by Homer | April 17, 2008 8:32 PM
Posted on April 17, 2008 20:32
Although I seldom practice/train at any distance less than 25 yards I have to agree with James. And I doubt there's a gun on the market that isn't accurate enough at 'normal' personal protection ranges. Heck, at 'normal' ranges I don't care if it even has sights, I won't use them anyway.
Having said that, my practice with the .380 is seldon more than 25 yards, and the .45 seldom more than 50 yards.
Yes, given time I can hit an 8" target farther away than that with both, but I surely hope I never have the need.
Personal protection/combat shooting is rather new to me. I had to learn a new style. (Still not too smooth with drawing and target acquisition from a concealed holster.) I spent 20 years shooting revolvers at longer distancs than most ever try. Even now my .357 is a 100 yard gun, and I practice at 100-200 yards with the .454, always off-hand.
I suppose all those years of trying to hit 4" clay targets at what some consider rifle range has helped with the close range marksmanship.
A handgun is considered by most to be a defensive weapon, and for me that's true when I carry. And yes, if there is a choice I'd choose a long gun. But in some hands a handgun can become a relative long range offensive weapon.
Posted by trajectory | April 17, 2008 10:21 PM
Posted on April 17, 2008 22:21
A comment I've heard attributed to Jimmy Hoffa: Don't run toward a man with a knife, or away from a man with a gun.
Running away can give him a clear, no-pressure shot at your back.
Posted by Sam L. | April 19, 2008 9:53 AM
Posted on April 19, 2008 09:53