Author |
Message |
oldkim
Site Supporter
Location: Maple Valley, WA Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 Posts: 9234
Real Name: Young
|
No
Most scenarios will never exceed 15-20 yards. I say most proven in previous documented cases.
The vast majority are within 3-7 yards.
The standard is based on physicality or proximity of the bad guy in situations where they are threatening you with bodily harm.
Most training involve close targets within 7-10 yards.
So with that said I know people will now look for ranges to adjust to 50 yards on a man size target. Please don’t get me wrong. This is good to build your skill. Although, I have to say a good chunk of people are not ready…
So for those that will waste ammo and get super frustrated and embarrassed by missing the side of the barn at 50 yards.
Please keep things simple.
Use man size target. Start off close to center or “zero” your gun to you. Say anywhere from 3-7 yards where you can place shots onto a 3”x5” paper card. Consistently.
After speeding up and placing multiple shots at those distances (3-7yards) - move the target back to 10-15 yards and repeat. As you hone your marksmanship skills go slow at each new distance. Take aimed shots over long pauses. And then once you find you are hitting the 3x5 start increasing your speed.
Over the last 32 years of shooting I have shot at all distances. Even shooting out to 400 yards+ with my sidearm of the day. It’s an eye opener and it was something fun to do. Granted I may be hitting my shots at 400 but who knows the true penetration or damage it would have done at those distances.
Practice at whatever distance you feel needed. Challenge your skills is a good thing.
|
Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:38 pm |
|
![](./styles/etechgray/theme/images/spacer.gif) |
bubblewhip
Site Supporter
Location: Redmond Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2020 Posts: 975
|
Yeah this is just a case of recency bias. On a practical level you should train for the most likely scenario you are to encounter.
Break down each stat. -your chance of violent crime -out of the above your chance that lethal force is justified -out of the above which ones will involve outside or inside your home where you have access to long guns -out of the above which involve it you directly vs. others around you
Prioritize the secnarios you are training for in terms of likelyhood.
|
Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:51 pm |
|
![](./styles/etechgray/theme/images/spacer.gif) |
Jeffro
Site Supporter
Location: Camano Island, WA Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 Posts: 739
Real Name: Jeff
|
#@oldkim As a student of your old school shoot and move parties, I thank you But… I took it to another level in private Think clearcuts with paper plate targets out to100 yds But not knowing exactly the distance as you seek the next best cover point It has to become instinctive at some point Practice, practice, practice
_________________ The Dude Abides
|
Thu Jul 21, 2022 3:31 pm |
|
![](./styles/etechgray/theme/images/spacer.gif) |
hkcavalier
Site Supporter
Location: NE WA Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 Posts: 5470
Real Name: The Dude
|
I think it will change training, and that's a good thing. I came up in the era (now ending) where instructors routinely said things like, "If you're shooting someone past twenty-five yards, you're murdering them." Meaning you had means to escape due to distance to the target, since criminals can't hit people at 25.1 yards. Or they were a burglar and are running away. So don't bother with distance shooting with a handgun unless you're a hunter. It's all about two to the torso, one to the brain box at seven yards.
The "muggers and burglars" era is slowing making way for the public place mass shooter/street riot era where you simply need more firepower.
_________________ "Wherever you go, there you are."
|
Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:13 pm |
|
![](./styles/etechgray/theme/images/spacer.gif) |
Yondering
Site Supporter
Location: Skagit County, in the woods Joined: Tue Apr 7, 2015 Posts: 1058
|
bubblewhip wrote: Yeah this is just a case of recency bias. On a practical level you should train for the most likely scenario you are to encounter.
No. That's only a way to justify mediocrity. Training for the most likely, or average, or whatever middle difficulty leaves half of the bell curve not dealt with. If you fly in an airplane, do you want the pilot only trained for average weather? Of course not. Train for the most difficult situations you might encounter.
|
Fri Jul 22, 2022 10:54 pm |
|
![](./styles/etechgray/theme/images/spacer.gif) |
Col_Temp
Site Supporter
Location: Lake Stevens Joined: Fri Jan 3, 2014 Posts: 6166
Real Name: Paris
|
Yondering wrote: bubblewhip wrote: Yeah this is just a case of recency bias. On a practical level you should train for the most likely scenario you are to encounter.
No. That's only a way to justify mediocrity. Training for the most likely, or average, or whatever middle difficulty leaves half of the bell curve not dealt with. If you fly in an airplane, do you want the pilot only trained for average weather? Of course not. Train for the most difficult situations you might encounter. What you say is only partly true. Training for something that is higly unlikely all to often is at the expense of training and honong skills forcthe likely. The op had the better idea, as data shows still far more self defense is at short distances. Practice for that until you are proficient. Them practice forcthe more rare, while not ignoring keeping the likely honed. Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
_________________Paris You can never be too prepared. Consider the ant thou sluggard. Proverbs 27:12 -- “A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.”Need Long term Food or Survival Supplies, I have extras, Grab the Supplies_Available.pdf. Prices Quoted are close to my actual cost: https://backupcomputing.workplace.datto.com/filelink/6af06-883bf7e-31d469c0e1-2Link corrected 1/30/2021. The prudent Wagunner trains and prepares to defend themselves and their families, friends, and neighbors. They also are prepared to feed, shelter, and provide aid as well. Danger is coming and may already be here, how prepared are you? Click the link above for lots of good info to get started.
|
Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:08 am |
|
![](./styles/etechgray/theme/images/spacer.gif) |
hkcavalier
Site Supporter
Location: NE WA Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 Posts: 5470
Real Name: The Dude
|
If you train for accuracy, THEN speed, the distance to the target ceases to mean much until you start to get to the mechanical and ergonomic limits of the weapon. But speed --- getting your weapon into play as quickly as possible to take out the threat --- has been seen as more important for some time. And it definitely is important. It's just not the only factor. So, do both and don't carry a mouse gun.
I'll be doing some M9 body target practice at 40 yards on Monday...if you're in the Spokane area you're welcome to come...
_________________ "Wherever you go, there you are."
|
Sat Jul 23, 2022 8:19 am |
|
![](./styles/etechgray/theme/images/spacer.gif) |
Yondering
Site Supporter
Location: Skagit County, in the woods Joined: Tue Apr 7, 2015 Posts: 1058
|
Col_Temp wrote: Yondering wrote: bubblewhip wrote: Yeah this is just a case of recency bias. On a practical level you should train for the most likely scenario you are to encounter.
No. That's only a way to justify mediocrity. Training for the most likely, or average, or whatever middle difficulty leaves half of the bell curve not dealt with. If you fly in an airplane, do you want the pilot only trained for average weather? Of course not. Train for the most difficult situations you might encounter. What you say is only partly true. Training for something that is higly unlikely all to often is at the expense of training and honong skills forcthe likely. The op had the better idea, as data shows still far more self defense is at short distances. Practice for that until you are proficient. Them practice forcthe more rare, while not ignoring keeping the likely honed. Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk One does not have to be at the expense of the other. Except maybe for the types who shoot infrequently and dry practice never. But I suspect those who actually practice these things know the distinctions here, without needing to go into all of the what and why. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that the dynamics have changed, and if you're "training" for the average gunfight with a J-frame at 7 yards you're not very prepared. Then again, most people doing that were never prepared in the first place, because they were practicing for a shooting match rather than preparing for a fight.
|
Sun Jul 24, 2022 12:37 am |
|
![](./styles/etechgray/theme/images/spacer.gif) |
SporkBoy
Site Supporter
Location: Deckerville Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 Posts: 2944
Real Name: Rob
|
Proficiency at arms is a very diverse topic.
_________________ “The Democrats are playing you for a political chump and if you vote for them, not only are you a chump, you are a traitor to your race.”-Malcolm X
|
Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:57 pm |
|
![](./styles/etechgray/theme/images/spacer.gif) |
|