Long gun vs. handgun skills – relative importance

[JoeSlomo]

Home defense = long gun is primary weapon / pistol back up.

It is faster and easier to draw and shoot a pistol than it is to possibly have to perform remedial action should the long gun go down in a bind.

Outside of home = pistol primary weapon.

I've shot long guns all my life and do it for a living, so I focus more of my personal training on the pistol. Most gunfights in the street involve very short ranges, which happens to be my specialty , so I try to focus my training on longer ranges, strong hand, and weak handed shooting. Those skills help in the local competitions too!

 

[mbt2001]

I agree with Jeff's post. Train with your primary weapon. The point of a handgun is that you will have it with you most of the time, i.e. primary weapon.

"You use your handgun to fight your way back to your rifle”, please explain the realistic application of this to you.

This is a terrible "saying" I wish it could be deleted from our collective, but that isn't possible.

You use your weapon to end the threat (either by stopping the perp or retreating). This whole, retreat and come back with your rifle is stupid, unless you are an LEO or in the Military or something.

If "they" are coming after you, if you are expecting trouble, then, like the old cowboys I would go and grab my long gun.

If the SHTF (on virtually any level), I would go for my long gun if I had time. In most home invasions and "street" shootings that isn't applicable.

 

[XDKingslayer]

I have been quiet since the OP, but have read every post and many more than once. I think you guys/gals have addressed about everything that has danced around in my head, and more. As you may have surmised, I am trying to determine how to most efficiently allocate time and money for paid instruction and practice. I think we are dealing w/ probabilities. What is the probability that I could access a rifle or shotgun in a particular situation? How would having a shotgun or rifle affect the probability for survival in a particular situation? These are heavily dependent upon lifestyle and environment.

I think you should allocate most of your time and money for instruction and practice of your primary weapon, whatever that be. That is the one that you life depends on the most and the one that you will more than likely turn to in the event of SD.

Yes, it's been said that a pisol is used to fight your way to a rifle, but that statement really doesn't apply anymore. Considering you're not carrying your rifle on you concealed, your pistol is now your primary weapon in most cases. Dedicate the majority of your training to that.

I would say the probability of using a rifle or shotgun in a defence situation depends on if you own a pistol. If you own a pistol and carry one concealed then the chances of you using a shotgun or rifle are pretty slim.

Yes, I can easily maintain some sort of access to a long gun in the home, but can I access it in seconds if a BG busts through front door suddenly? What about the trade-offs of maintaining long gun access in the home to keeping the weapon secure? Jackdanson mentioned keeping his AR in his car and addressed accessibility and security. He mentioned active shooter scenarios (shooting sprees). What is the probability non-LE would be able to make a positive contribution to an AS scenario using a long gun in a medium– to high-density population area? Is it highly probably that someone with a long gun would simply get shot or arrested upon detection by LE.

That is why I don't think a long gun/EBR/shotgun is NOT a good home defence weapon. They are hard to maneuver with, slow to reload, slow to clear a malf, and with kids around hard to get to quickly.

If you're mainly a pistol carrier, then dedicate the majority of your training and practice to it. Become deadly profficient with it. But don't ignore your rifle skills. They need to be up to the task of at least taking game at distance if the need should arise.

 

[lesjones]

"Here in Tennessee we are not legally permitted to carry a loaded firearm out in public, unless we conceal it and register both the firearm and ourselves with the government, pay a sizeable deposit, and wait for their blessing and approval."

I'm not sure where you're getting your information (especially since you list your location as Kentucky). Tennessee does not require registration of firearms for carry permit holders or for anyone else.

It is true that Tennessee requires a permit to carry a handgun. The permitting process requires a class at an approved facility, written and shooting test, background check, and fingerprinting. There's a fee of $115 to cover the last two items. The class usually runs under a hundred dollars. For most folks that $80 or so is a cheap investment in learning how not to get sued or wind up in jail because they didn't understand the laws regarding self-defense.

However, the permit allows both concealed or open carry. In Tennessee it's a "Handgun Carry Permit" (says so right on mine) not a "Concealed Carry Weapons" permit. The Tennessee Firearms Association lobbied to make sure of that so that you couldn't get arrested if someone caught a glimpse of your gun.

Tennessee Department of Safety - Handgun Carry Permit Issuance

 

[drmsparks]

Here's my 3 cents....

I have found that all my marksmanship skills feed on each other. If I work on pistol skills the next time I shoot my rifle it is a little better. Switching to rifle, my pistol skills also improve. Mix in some archery and everything improves. So much of marksmanship is physical and mental, which goes beyond the tools you are using.

So I guess what I want to stress is concentrate on what you feel is most important to your goals, but mix it up.

 

[LAK]

To quote the late Col. Cooper; "The rifle is the queen of personal weapons". And if we include shotguns for those who prefer them, to neglect the long gun is like taking your queen off the chessboard before the game begins.

I would not look at this in terms of "how likely" or "what ifs". Rather the potentially most effective and universal weapon in the martial arts. As it happens, the handgun, be it pistol or revolver, is more difficult for most people to master. Hence more time spent in doing so, and for practice and drills, is generally warranted and a good idea.

I would strongly suggest Col. Cooper's "The Art of the Rifle" as a solid foundation. Some of it might well apply to shotguns as well; perhaps someone else an suggest a similar work specifically for the shotgun.

-------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Kentucky]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information (especially since you list your location as Kentucky).

My name is listed as Kentucky, but I dont believe I have my location listed here on THR. I am from Kentucky, but I have lived in Tennessee for about the last 3 years.

Tennessee does not require registration of firearms for carry permit holders or for anyone else.

Depends on how you look at it. I see a 4473 as registration. I actually took the class because I was preparing to get my CCL here in Tennessee, after shooting the course the instructor had to write down my firearms make and model (and maybe even serial number, cant remember for sure) alongside my name on the paperwork that he submitted. Now perhaps I can trust the government not to be nosy, keep that information, or put it anywhere it doesnt belong, but I dont have that much confidence in them, especially since it goes against the very principals of an ever-expanding big brother.

It is true that Tennessee requires a permit to carry a handgun. The permitting process requires a class at an approved facility, written and shooting test, background check, and fingerprinting. There's a fee of $115 to cover the last two items. The class usually runs under a hundred dollars. For most folks that $80 or so is a cheap investment in learning how not to get sued or wind up in jail because they didn't understand the laws regarding self-defense.

Yup, I am aware of all that. Like I said, I took the class. To me, $200 plus a minimum of six weeks of waiting, plus having at the least my NAME registered and put on a list is an infringement.

 

[Trebor]

Jeff White hit it on the head. Train most with your primary weapon.

I'm a private citizen. I'm not a cop or soldier. I have a CPL and I carry. Therefore the vast bulk of my training is with a handgun.

I do shoot rifles recreationally and I have taken one "Defensive Carbine" class. That's all I need for now as the odds of my having a rifle handy are less then the odds of my having a handgun when I need it.

I can't carry a rifle everywhere I go, but I carry a handgun with me everywhere it is legal to do so.

I do plan to train with a shotgun soon as it is the weapon I'm least familiar with and I now have a shotgun at home. After that, back for more handgun training.

 

[benEzra]

I shoot about 50/50 handgun/rifle.

In my opinion, it's not an either/or proposition. That would be like asking a martial artist, "should you train to become proficient with your hands, or with your feet?"

Also, training (for anything) is not linear. The first 50% is very easy, the first 90% is not too hard, the last 10% takes an immense amount of time and effort. If that is the case, then train to 90% of your capability with both, and then concentrate on one if you want to. But there is no a priori reason that you can't be very, very good with both, even on a budget. Dry-firing isn't expensive, and will help with a lot of the skill sets.

 

[Pat-inCO]

I think the easiest analogy is eating. Most meals are easier to consume if you have a knife, fork and spoon. In each meal there is something that is far easier with one of those specialized utensils.

In shooting, you have Rifle, Shotgun and Pistol. Each has a specific application that it is superior for, but proficiency with all three makes you far more able to (quoting the Cable Guy) git 'er done.

The ratio is up to the individual, but I say be able to use all three.

 

[Hook686]

I practice both, a .30 M1 carbine and 9mm, .357 magnum, .44 magnum handguns.

Practice ranges are up to 50 yards. I never know if I'll be home, on the road, in the foothills, or any point in between when a lethal threat might appear.

 

[conw]

LAK post 31, you got it IMO.

My family can hit stuff with my carbine out to about 30 yds off-hand EASY. My pistol (a subcompact) gives them a lot of trouble. They'd need to train with the carbine to really be able to use it under stress, but it's very true that pistols are just harder in general to be proficient with.

Hence most people, especially run of the mill civilians, ought to practice more with the handgun...but that shouldn't rule out rifle practice either!

 

[goon]

My qualifications are nonexistent.
However, I have been thinking lately that using a handgun is potentiall the more important skill to focus on.
First, a handgun is more concealable. You can carry a handgun when a rifle or shotgun is impractical or plain impossible to have with you. A handgun can allow you to be armed nearly all the time. Because of that, it's the gun that you're most likely to have when you really need a gun.
Second, in my experience, handguns take more practice to stay proficient than long guns do. Most hunters I know only shoot two or three shots a year with their deer rifles as practice. They still manage to kill deer out to 200 yards or so with a fair degree of success. Granted, hunting isn't combat. But it is a situation where you have to quickly and accurately place you shot under stress while the adrenaline is flowing through you.

I agree wholeheartedly that rifles and shotguns are undoubtedly more effective weapons. If I knew I was going to need a gun, I'd want a decent rifle over anything short of a claymore mine.
But to me, effective isn't always the most important consideration.
For example, I'd bet a late model Buick would be extremely effective at ending a fight too but if I can't get my hands on it and bring it to bear on someone who's trying to harm me, it really isn't much use when I need it.

 

[owlhoot]

My observation is that a good handgun marksman is almost always a good shot with the rifle. After all, the essential fundamentals are the same for both weapons. It's just a lot easier with the rifle.

If one owns a rifle or carbine, he certainly should be familar with its manual of arms. But he shouldn't need to shoot it often in order to maintain an acceptable degree of proficiency. A rifle is far more forgiving than a handgun when it comes to paying close attention to fundamentals.

 

[sacp81170a]

But he shouldn't need to shoot it often in order to maintain an acceptable degree of proficiency

I agree that simply punching holes in paper isn't necessary, but drilling for different scenarios is. Going to the range and putting 5 rounds in a dime-sized hole at 100 yards is far removed from moving down the hall from your bedroom to the kids' room in the dark. There are lots of basics of gun handling that are the "same" yet different when a long gun vs. handgun is involved. Are you set up with a light? How do you carry safely in the home? What do you do when the corner is left handed rather than right handed? How do you open that door without exposing your rifle to being snatched from your grasp or alerting the BG to your position?

Handguns are, well, handier in these situations while rifles and shotguns offer better firepower. Which you use is up to you and your physical and financial situation, but don't make the mistake of thinking that getting sub-MOA groups on the range is a substitute for CQB practice with either weapon. I really don't see how you can make a rational, informed decision as to which is better for you (if both are available) without some walk through and realistic practice. Even an old single shot break open shotgun is a useful tool that can be very effective, if you practice.

 

[tntwatt]

1.handgun
2.shotgun
3.rifle

In today's current society, it seems most likely that you would need your handgun for self-defense first. The actuality that ,as a civilian, you would need distance capabilities of a rifle seem extremely low. However, it is possible that during a riot type senario you would need more firepower than a handgun. Hence, the shotgun.

Your handgun will probably never be needed at farther than 5-10 yards. So, while practicing out to distances is really fun, it is not necessarily practical. Also, at such short distances, rapid deployment becomes extremely important. Hitting your target is of utmost importance, but not enough people practice draw techniques. It doesn't matter how well you hit your targets if you can't bring your weapon into play fast enough to acqiure a target.

The average healthy male can cross 15 feet in under 1 second.

 

[leadcounsel]

Keep in mind the legalities of self defense. Most states require that a lawful self defense shooting must be the result of fear of immiment serious or deadly unlawful force to yourself or another non-aggressor.

Drawing a handgun to stop an aggressor against yourself is probably lawful... however going back to your vehicle to get your rifle to stop what you think is a robbery in progress is possibly NOT lawful because you may not have all of the facts - the "armed robber" you just shot from 50 yards may have been a lawful citizen detaining a suspect of a felony, or an undercover LEO. Going back to your vehicle also negates any "immiment" fear for your own safety.

 

[bsf]

Thank you everyone. The dialogue is appreciated. I will continue to focus on pistol skills, but I plan to take ~8hr of formal instruction per year for carbine. Outside of that and a little extra range time before and after the instruction, I am not going to concern myself much with carbine training for the near future. My handgun skills are weak. When I get those “squared away”, I will re-evaluate this question.

Based on my lifestyle and location, I feel long guns best serve me in defense of home during ordinary times and possibly in a wider role during the aftermath of some disaster scenario like Katrina. Outside of those and sporting uses, I feel they serve little purpose for non-LE. Even in the home, I feel handguns have advantages over long guns.

As an aside, the one scenario occurring outside the home where a long gun, on the surface, seems to have a role is an active shooter. I fully support on- and off-duty LE keeping a long gun in their duty and personally owned vehicles at all times in preparation for addressing AS scenarios and others. As non-LE though, my goal in an AS scenario is to remove myself and any family from the equation as quickly as possible, preferably before LE arrives. In my mind, successfully employing a long gun by non-LE, where I live, to end an AS scenario in a public place would be nightmarishly difficult.

As far as the other scenario widely mentioned or alluded to, government tyranny, I do not worry about that either. If this nation reaches a point where enough individuals are elected to pass legislation to send storm-troopers out for mass gun confiscation, the game is over. There would be no long-term, effective, armed resistance. You might as well plan for a meteor hitting you on the head.

 

[sacp81170a]

bsf:

I am not going to concern myself much with carbine training for the near future. My handgun skills are weak. When I get those “squared away”, I will re-evaluate this question.

Based on that, I agree with concentrating on handgun and bringing your proficiency up to speed with at least one weapon system before worrying about another. Practicing CQB drills with a carbine would be counterproductive because you really don't know what to practice. Ingraining incorrect procedures until they become bad habits is worse than no training at all. Get good with the pistol. A lot of those principles will transfer quite nicely to the carbine when you have time for it later.

 

[M1911]

I think one of the best things that I ever did for my handgun marksmanship was to compete in Service Rifle for a couple years. When you are prone at the 600 yard line, you learn real fast about trigger control.

 

[LAK]

leadcounsel

Drawing a handgun to stop an aggressor against yourself is probably lawful... however going back to your vehicle to get your rifle to stop what you think is a robbery in progress is possibly NOT lawful because you may not have all of the facts - the "armed robber" you just shot from 50 yards may have been a lawful citizen detaining a suspect of a felony, or an undercover LEO. Going back to your vehicle also negates any "immiment" fear for your own safety.

In most all states that I know of, the defense of a third party is as legitimate as doing so to protect ones self.

Good to keep in mind as a precautionary; however we should not be driven to sit by and do nothing if there is reasonable belief - the same criteria for self defense - that a deadly assault is in progress against one or more third parties. Using the same good judgement that is used for self defense applies.

 

[SAWBONES]

Most of what should be said has been said.

I would only add my opinion that there seems to be a mildly-disproportionate current over-emphasis on carbine and "urban rifle" training among the "tactical training" instructors who train civilians, none of which civilian students will ever have any reasonable or conceivable need for such, except possibly for
point-blank shotgun use inside their own homes.

In the extremely rare case that use of a firearm is genuinely required by non-LEO/non-military folks, a handgun will be what is available and also what is appropriate. Training emphasis should take account of this fact.

I'm not at all against defensive long-gun training for non-LEO/non-military, and I recognise that TEOTWAWKI scenarios are possible, but I do think it's being emphasized nowadays beyond what is useful.
I have come to suspect that many of those who are offering more and more training in such are doing so because they're running out of square-range handgun training material!

 

[sacp81170a]

I would only add my opinion that there seems to be a mildly-disproportionate current over-emphasis on carbine and "urban rifle" training among the "tactical training" instructors who train civilians, none of which civilian students will ever have any reasonable or conceivable need for such, except possibly for point-blank shotgun use inside their own homes.

That's right, by gum. If you want a military weapon you should join the military. No civilian will ever have a use for a military style carbine. A pump shotgun is all you need. (/sarcasm off)

Where do I get the idea that we're "shooting ourselves in the foot" here? Following the logic of some of the responders here leads us to all sorts of "reasonable" gun control. Let people make up their own minds about what to use or not use. If you're gonna have something to use for HD, you should train with it. If you're gonna carry a firearm for personal defense outside the home, you should train with it. You should be proficient with any firearm you have for either purpose. Then, if you want to own firearms for plinking, hanging on the wall or making your buddies jealous, go for it. It's called freedom of choice.

 

[YammyMonkey]

A while back I decided to take a look at my training priorities as I saw them at the time & compare that to the likelihood I'd ever need those skills. What it came down to was that even though I'd like to take a carbine class with Pat Rogers or the High Risk Civilian Contractor courses from Tactical Response I'm MUCH more likely to need something along the lines of SouthNarc's ECQC/PUC/IEK training & some good hand-to-hand.

That said, training is fun & I would jump on the chance to take & re-take any of the above classes, but with relatively limited money & time to budget for training I have to prioritize my training classes, range & dry fire time.

 

[bsf]

It appears this thread has substantially stayed on topic and is near the end of its useful life. I appreciate discussion, but see no need to trash it at the end by going off topic w/ discussions of political strategy. Thanks.