Snubbie "tactical" accuracy?

[David E]

I have never handicapped myself by not learning something because someone else said it wasn’t practical.

Amen!

 

[Loosedhorse]

The only limitations on practical accuracy with a snub are with the shooter, not the gun

Disagree completely, as I have already said. There is a reason that bull's-eye shooters don't use .38 snubbies, but you are free not to acknowledge that.

 

[David E]

Are you now redefining "practical" accuracy as "bullseye" accuracy?

 

[kcshooter]

There is a reason that bull's-eye shooters don't use .38 snubbies, but you are free not to acknowledge that.

Would it be easier to shoot bullseye competitions with a longer sight radius? Of course. Nobody implied it wouldn't be.

But is it possible to shoot a bullseye competition with a snub nose and do well? Absolutely. And for a skilled shooter, it isn't even unlikely.

but you are free not to acknowledge that

Is that really needed?

 

[Deaf Smith]

Push comes to shove, then from a prone position, SA, I'd expect a good 2 inch snub with good ammo to make hits at 100 yards if the shooter knows just how much aim over is needed.

Fast DA work? Again from a well practice individual I can see good COM hits at 15 yards one handed.

But thing is the snub is a EXPERTS GUN. Not some 'ladies' gun that many people pawn off on women. Nor is it a 'once a year' shooter who gets a box of ammo and familiarizes themselves with the gun. There are much more shootable guns than the snub!

Take a look at these two websites.

http://snubtraining.com/index.html

http://www.snubnose.info/

Oh, and I have two CCW guns. Glock 26 customized by Bowie Tactical Concepts and my S&W 642 that I did my own action job to. I have practice versions of the two weapons as well as a AACK .22 unit for the Glock and a S&W 2 inch 34 kit gun in .22 lr. PLUS dummy aluminum versions for drawing practice in the house. And ever a laserized Airsoft Glock 26!

You see I feel skill is ten times more important than the exact equipment one uses.

Deaf

 

[David E]

But thing is the snub is a EXPERTS GUN.

I know what you mean, but I disagree with the term.

Is it a good first gun? No, not really. Is it a good "all-around?" No. Are there other guns easier to shoot? Sure.

But does it take an inordinate amount of skill to shoot one well? No.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Are you now redefining "practical" accuracy as "bullseye" accuracy?

Perhaps you mean "re-label" it? No, I think practical accuracy is generally understood.

Just pointing out--again, as I did in the OP--that the practical accuracy of bull's-eye guns (or Olympic guns, or PPC guns, or even the lowly, well tuned 1911 I've already mentioned) is expected to be better than the practical accuracy of J-frame snubs. What's your phrase: this isn't that difficult?

Would it be easier to shoot bullseye competitions with a longer sight radius? Of course. Nobody implied it wouldn't be.

Well: thanks for agreeing with my point about practical accuracy. And welcome back.

Any thoughts about your J-frame, hit-the-active-shooter-not-the-bystanders distance limit? I'm not sure I've heard anyone definitively say anything over 25 yards yet, though I am asking for clarification (see below).

Push comes to shove, then from a prone position, SA, I'd expect a good 2 inch snub with good ammo to make hits at 100 yards

Sounds like a vote for a 100-yard take out shot on an active shooter to me--is it?

Is that what a theoretical "good shooter" should be able to do in an active shooter/bystanders scenario, or yourself personally--or what all of us should be able to do (trying to connect your post to my OP)? Or is it just a "I bet I can hit it this time" yardage?

But does it take an inordinate amount of skill to shoot one well? No.

"Shoot one well"--is this hits on a basketball at 50 yards, without pressure? I'm assuming from your earlier comments, but please clarify if I've misstated. Some definition of "shoot one well" would be helpful.

 

[David E]

Perhaps you mean "re-label" it? No, I think practical accuracy is generally understood.

Yes, but not by everyone....

Your definition of practical accuracy in Post #1 is contrary to everyone else's definition who came before you.

You said:

2) Practical accuracy. One opinion I received is that what matters is that "the gun" is accurate (I assume, in a Ransom rest, for example)

Your definition of practical accuracy is flat out wrong.

In the paraphrased words of Jeff Cooper, "Practical" accuracy is what a shooter can do with the gun, not what the gun itself can do. That is called "intrinsic" accuracy.

Look at it like this: let's say the intrinsic accuracy of a sightless Python fired from a Ransom rest is 1", but the practical accuracy when fired by a person could be 18" at the same distance. But put the sights back on, the practical accuracy could then be 2"

 

[Scipio Africanus]

Lotta interesting stuff here, all I know is that I can not hit worth a darn with a 2.5" barrel revolver much past twenty five yards. Lengthen that barrel to 4" and now I can hit out to 100 yards with confidence. For me, the bottom line is I rarely carry a shorty and then only when I am sure the distances will be within 25 yards. I carry a 4" revolver almost every day.

 

[NMPOPS]

As you said, disregarding the tactical aspect, now that I am retired, I am primarily concerned with self defense so I do not think I should or would need to make a shot past 10 yards. Although, when I practice I always end with 5-10 rounds out to 50 yards, just to make sure I know I can if I ever need to.

 

[jimbo555]

I think tactical accuracy means the target can be moving and shooting back and that changes everything when you are using any handgun to hit a target at distance with bystanders close.But a 1 and7/8inch barrel snubby with most likely a dao trigger only means you don't take the shot!

 

[StrawHat]

For what it is worth, in PPC competition, there used to be a division that used "Off Duty" revolvers. These were specified as barrels of 3" or less. It was not uncommon to shoot scores similar to what we shot with longer barreled revolvers. The distances involved were from 7 to 50 yards.

It takes a variety of factors to accomplish this. Much of it can be learned from dry firing at a blank wall. Concentate on the sights, when they stop moving while you are "firing" double action, you will start hitting targets farther away from the firing line.

A smooth action, decent ammunition, and practice are required for long range shooting.

 

[Loosedhorse]

For what it is worth, in PPC competition...

I think that comment is worth a lot. PPC produced some odd, specialized revolvers; but a division for snubs (I'd be most interested in 1-7/8" barrels) is interesting and relevant here.

I wonder: were these "stock" off-duty snubs, or did they have the large sights, target stocks and (shorter) bull barrels that PPC guns were famous for?

Although, when I practice I always end with 5-10 rounds out to 50 yards

What group size do you expect at that range, if I may ask?

But at the same time I have no negative feelings knowing that if I had to I could, even if it was nothing more then suppressive fire

I have always thought of suppressive fire as something best accoplished with a crew-served, belt-fed weapon, not a 5-shot revolver; and as something best not done when there are innocents next to the shooter. But opinions vary.

Your definition of practical accuracy in Post #1 is contrary to everyone else's definition who came before you.

Actually, I don't think it is at all.

Intrinsic accuracy, as I said under theoretical accuracy, is what the gun can do (in Ransom rest). Practical accuracy, as I said, has to do with the "gun-shooter interaction," and is therefore affected by things like sight radius (which do not affect Ransom Rest results).

<deleted>

 

[Sam1911]

I have always thought of suppressive fire as something best accoplished with a crew-served, belt-fed weapon, not a 5-shot revolver; and as something best not done when there are innocents next to the shooter. But opinions vary.

FWIW, there is a very important point here. While you certainly could "suppress" with a few shots from any gun, suppressive fire, by definition, is expected to primarily NOT hit the target but impact the general area, and so is NEVER something you perform if there are any valuable assets in the target area. As the question here referred to a situation where there were hostages/innocents near the target, performing suppressive fire would be unacceptable in the given scenario.

[MOD TALK: This is getting hostile again. Before ANYONE responds to this thread, read what you're replying to VERY carefully so you know for sure you aren't misinterpreting what was written, and then make sure your reply is so INCREDIBLY polite that I can't POSSIBLY want to kick you off the forum. Savvy?]

 

[Lawdawg45]

I was recently taken to task for suggesting that most people don't view snub-nosed revolvers as "long range"

Finally my three questions:
1) At what distance would you be comfortable taking that shot with a J-frame?
2) At what maximum distance "should we" be able to take that shot, and how do we get our abilities and comfort from the distance in question 1 to the distance in question 2?
3) For those concerned with this "long-shot" (pardon the pun) scenario, would it be worthwhile considering the carry of a different firearm?

1. My J Frame is a pocket gun for short trips to areas of low threat scenarios and I realize it's limitations from barrel length and sights (or lack thereof), but about 15 yards is the most for me, although I routinely qualified out to 25 yards.
2. Assuming you're speaking of SD scenarios instead of match shooting, you'd be hard pressed to convince a Jury that you were in harms way and unable to retreat or find cover at long distances, especially carrying a snubby. FBI data still has most shootings occuring at 10 feet or under.
3. A few years ago I was Security Director for a large local church, and we often had a person staged in the balcony to observe and possibly take a needed shot if ground personnel weren't close, and my weapon of choice was a Ruger Vaquero in .45 colt with a 7 1/2 inch barrel. I felt very comfortable taking a 50+yard shot, although the actual distance was about 35 yards.

LD

 

[Loosedhorse]

A few years ago I was Security Director for a large local church, and we often had a person staged in the balcony to observe and possibly take a needed shot if ground personnel weren't close, and my weapon of choice was a Ruger Vaquero in .45 colt with a 7 1/2 inch barrel. I felt very comfortable for a 50+yard shot, although the actual distance was about 35 yards.

Sounds like a very interesting experience in a lot of ways. Glad you never were called upon to use it.

Your comments here I think particularly speak to my question #3, that if you have reason to expect to engage at longer range (or just want to be prepared for that), part of your preparation might be selecting a different gun than a snub. Thanks.

 

[kcshooter]

Any thoughts about your J-frame, hit-the-active-shooter-not-the-bystanders distance limit?

I respectfully and incredibly politely decline, as I believe the situation may require immediate judgment based upon more complete information than was given in the original post.

 

[xXxplosive]

At the range can pretty much hit the 4" gong at 25yds with my Model 36...........in CQB.....Hmmm....a lot closer I'm sure.

 

[Loosedhorse]

...I believe the situation may require immediate judgment based upon more complete information...

I see your point. Thanks anyway.

At the range can pretty much hit the 4" gong at 25yds

Maybe time now for me to chime in.

My snubs are hammerless DAOs and they wear laser grips. The lasers are zeroed at 25 yards. I actually don't expect to use a snub that far away, but at that zero, the difference between the laser and the POI is going to be about 2 inches or less. So I'm very comfortable with shots (I think even unobstucted tactical shots) out to about 30 yards. Without the laser, I'm less accurate, but still fine with 20-25 yards.

I confess that while I have done a lot of practice SD pistol shooting at 50 yards, and even a little at 100 yards (no farther), it has not been with snubs. Part of my purpose in this thread is to figure out if I "should" be doing 50 (or even 100) yard practice with snubs, or just keep using for that my other carry guns that seem more suited to that longer-distance task.

 

[Creature]

Finally my three questions:
1) At what distance would you be comfortable taking that shot with a J-frame?
2) At what maximum distance "should we" be able to take that shot, and how do we get our abilities and comfort from the distance in question 1 to the distance in question 2?
3) For those concerned with this "long-shot" (pardon the pun) scenario, would it be worthwhile considering the carry of a different firearm?

1) Against a human-sized target and under stress, I am confident to be able to put my shots in COM at up to 25yds from my snubby.
2) In my opinion, under perfect "shooting range" distance with no stress, 50 yds.
3) No I dont feel choosing a different firearm would be appropriate for SD.

 

[David E]

The bottom line, I think, is to maximize your skill with your chosen gun.

In the scenario presented, as I envision it, it would reckless to take a shot at all, regardless of the distance, with any gun. Either get out of there, (best choice) get closer and/or wait for an opportunity to take a clear shot.

If someone cannot hit a basketball past ten yards with a snub, it is not due to the snub!

As many folks have shared, good accuracy can be accomplished with a snub nose, short sight radius and all. To deny that is to deny factual, demonstrable truth.

 

[kcshooter]

I do feel that if the shot would be appropriate to take with a 4" barreled revolver, I would feel just as confident taking the same shot with a snub nose.

While I won't put a specific distance on it for the reasons in my preceding post, I don't feel that the firearm would be the deciding factor in this situation.

 

[mavracer]

1) At what distance would you be comfortable taking that shot with a J-frame?
2) At what maximum distance "should we" be able to take that shot, and how do we get our abilities and comfort from the distance in question 1 to the distance in question 2?
3) For those concerned with this "long-shot" (pardon the pun) scenario, would it be worthwhile considering the carry of a different firearm?

1: depends a lot on the actual proximity of innocents, but I feel confident in my ability with a snub out to 25 yards off hand and 50 with a improvised rest.
2: I'm not compelled to take such a shot so knowing the answer to question #1 is far more important than what's going to be a guess for #2.
3: again knowing the answer to #1 is more important.

 

[Lawdawg45]

Sounds like a very interesting experience in a lot of ways. Glad you never were called upon to use it.

Your comments here I think particularly speak to my question #3, that if you have reason to expect to engage at longer range (or just want to be prepared for that), part of your preparation might be selecting a different gun than a snub. Thanks.

It was interesting in that the church leadership had very little issue with our team being armed. The church was 5000+ members, and my point to the board was that they were larger than some towns, which had a staffed Police force. The times of thinking a church is a "safe zone" is a distant memory unfortunately, and to sit there like baby ducks is a mistake........in my opinion.

LD

 

[Loosedhorse]

The bottom line, I think, is to maximize your skill with your chosen gun.

Well, I think that's one bottom line. The other might be to, given one's individual assessment of whatever likely or unlikely SD scenarios he wants to be prepared for, factor that into the choice of carry gun.

As to "maximize". Some of us (especially perhaps those who carry more than one gun) consider the snub in a certain role, typically at close quarters. For us, "maximizing" our skill with a snub might mean practicing reloads, and fast draws from holster or pocket, and rapid fire at 5 yards...and not so much mean practicing with the snub at 50 yards (which we do with other pistols).

Practice time is finite; choices are to be made. The "right" choice can, I think, vary from individual to individual.

it would reckless to take a shot at all

I don't see it that way, but as was pointed out, there are enough details missing that either view can be considered "correct."

To the extent that any of us might decide to engage an active shooter, it's probably worthwhile considering what your "Yes, I will engage" scenario would look like (including distance to threat), and consider doing appropriate practice with a carry gun well suited to that scenario.

Of course, if anyone's already decided "I'm only ever going to carry THIS gun," then they should build their scenarios and practice around use of that gun. And if anyone has decided there is no better gun in any scenario than a snub, well, no reason not to carry that.

If someone cannot hit a basketball past ten yards with a snub, it is not due to the snub!

If that same someone, given a 1911, can now hit that basketball--is their previous inaccuracy due to the snub then? Given the differences in individual accuracy, I think some shooters may understandably shoot better with a gun other than a snub revolver; and I think we see that regularly.