Snubbie "tactical" accuracy?

[kcshooter]

If that same someone, given a 1911, can now hit that basketball--is their previous inaccuracy due to the snub then?

No, it is due to their lack of skill with one.

Let's say they seek 6 months worth of education and practice and can then hit the baseketball with the same gun. Unlikely scenario? Not at all.

Can't see how that would be the gun's fault.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Let's say they seek 6 months worth of education and practice and can then hit the baseketball with the same gun

Fair enough. Alternatively, however, let's say they don't dedicate those 6 months to that. Unlikely scenario? Not at all.

But they still shoot better with the 1911. A lot of people do. I still think that should factor in to their choice of handgun, and to what they should consider their practical distance limit with any given handgun.

 

[Sam1911]

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

Certainly a very valid point. The choice of WHAT gun we carry (or what gun when) is at least influenced by the threat we think we're [strike]most likely[/strike] least unlikely to face. Or it should be.

We often see shooters show up for our Defensive Pistol matches and proceed to unload and bag their KelTec, Khar, or J-frame and strap on a full-sized M&P or Glock because, "I can't shoot that little thing worth beans, and it hurts to shoot -- it's just for carry."

While many of us think that kind of thinking is silly and maybe even dangerous, the more thoughtful of those shooters will say that they accept the "3-shot, 3-feet, 3-seconds" concept as the far most likely need and they are confident enough in their little carry gun to face such a threat with it.

 

[David E]

David E: "It would be reckless to take the 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."

Going only by what you wrote:

I thought about a more realistic scenario: an active shooter, with innocents near-by, so that if you miss, you're hurting innocents...

You don't distinguish between a shot that misses by a couple feet or one inch, so we must conclude a shot missing by one inch or less will kill an innocent. Therefore, innocents are behind the badguy. Innocents behind and down range of the badguy are in mortal danger even if the shot hits, then exits, the badguy. Your "more realistic scenario" lacks far too many specifics to be of any value.

 

[David E]

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.

When YOU get to define the parameters, you can make specific choices that best suit those parameters. He chose a 7.5" gun, but somehow I doubt that was his everyday carry.

 

[Loosedhorse]

You don't distinguish between a shot that misses by a couple feet or one inch

Exactly. Misses on an active shooter (endangering innocents) can be like that. I wanted to get away from the buddies-at-the-range "Well, that was pretty darn close to hitting" mentality.

If it helps, let me repeat what I said before, clarifying what I meant by the maximum distance, in a tactical situation, that you'd be comfortable taking the shot:

"I know, under the highest stress, that I will place this shot on target, period, no miss."

As I also said, a rested shot is fine.

 

[kcshooter]

Fair enough. Alternatively, however, let's say they don't dedicate those 6 months to that. Unlikely scenario? Not at all.

But they still shoot better with the 1911. A lot of people do. I still think that should factor in to their choice of handgun, and to what they should consider their practical distance limit with any given handgun.

So what? That wasn't being discussed.

My statement was in response to your question as to whether their inability to be accurate was the snub nose's fault.

 

[Loosedhorse]

That wasn't being discussed.

Sure it was--I was discussing it.

To recap: if a shooter shoots poorly with a particular gun, we can address that in different ways. If we add training, and the shooting improves, then the lack of training was part (or all) of the problem.

If instead we change guns, and the shooting improves, then the gun was part (or all) of the problem.

 

[David E]

"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

No one has suggested ignoring these skills. People have suggested extending your effective range.

Likewise, no one has suggested a snub is the best gun to handle every situation.

 

[Sam1911]

...then the gun and/or the shooter's personal competence with that specific type of gun was part (or all) of the problem.

If I'm accurately leaping the disconnects here, kcshooter is saying it isn't necessarily a problem with the gun (though it could be), but a problem with the whole system of gun & shooter.

Either training, or changing guns, or both could improve things.

 

[Loosedhorse]

People have suggested extending your effective range.

Exactly. And I have asked--right in the OP--whether that is better done by practicing at "extended" range (50 yards? 100?) with a snubbie, or switching to a different gun and then practicing at those distances.

If for some reason, one can ONLY practice with or carry a snub, then the answer is obvious. But most of us can choose among several platforms for carry; so that choice is part of our decision of how to prepare to deal with longer-distance SD scenarios.

Either training, or changing guns, or both could improve things.

I agree (post #58).

 

[Skribs]

If instead we change guns, and the shooting improves, then the gun was part (or all) of the problem.

The gun itself, no. The user's experience with the gun is. It's why, in another thread, someone mentioned he would choose a .45 pistol over a .223 rifle, because he has 35 years practicing with the .45. The options are to train on a new gun or use the old gun, doesn't mean it's the gun's fault.

ETA: 2 posts while I was typing. LH, I think you need to practice with what you expect you would need to take that shot with.

 

[kcshooter]

If instead we change guns, and the shooting improves, then the gun was part (or all) of the problem

No.
Suppose another, more skilled, shooter takes the "inaccurate" snub nose out of the first shooter's hand and puts 5 rounds in the 8 ring at 50 yards. Another very plausible scenario, yes?
Still going to blame the gun?

Sam stated what I was saying correctly, that I don't believe that inaccuracy can be blamed on the gun, but on the shooter.

 

[Sam1911]

It's why, in another thread, someone mentioned he would choose a .45 pistol over a .223 rifle, because he has 35 years practicing with the .45.

Hmmm, that sounds somewhat familiar. While I have many friends (and MANY on-line cohorts) who say a rifle/carbine or shotgun is easier, faster, and more accurate than a handgun to handle any threat, I shoot pistols at a rate of 1,000 rounds to 1 over rifles, and know from timed/scored practical exercises that in many defensive scenarios I would be better able to react with a handgun. A lot of that has to do with experience with the platform.

Put 10,000 rds. a year through a snubbie wheelgun and you're going to be pretty good at not only hitting things quickly and accurately, but also knowing what shots you can make and what you can't.

Put a box of ammo through one every other month or so? Maybe not.

 

[David E]

If it helps, let me repeat what I said before, clarifying what I meant by the maximum distance, in a tactical situation, that you'd be comfortable taking the shot

Ok, i can answer this now.

Your scenario: The active shooter/bad guy is surrounded by innocents in close proximity. ANY miss (or over penetration) on my part can kill an innocent.

The maximum distance I'd be comfortable taking that shot with my 642 snub (my preferred gun in this particular scenario) would be at muzzle contact, jabbing it up in his ribs angling the muzzle upwards towards his heart. The muzzle blast of the +P round may do more damage than the bullet, and I could repeat it give times if necessary. Chance of bullet exit is minimal, but even if it did, it's angled upward, away from any innocents.

Glad we got that settled!

 

[Loosedhorse]

I think you need to practice with what you expect you would need to take that shot with.

Makes sense.

The gun itself, no. The user's experience with the gun is.

This assumes, IMHO, two things, either or both:

1. That increasing this indvidual shooter's experience with that gun (in a practical timeframe) will bring her/his shooting into (some defined) standard of competence that the shooter could not achieve before.

2. That the training time to do that isn't better spent with a different firearm; that training with a snub will progress just as efficiently as training with another gun.

Given the variety of shooters out there, I'm not sure I would assume either for any individual. As a trainer (often of beginners) I am very used to the idea of "that gun and you don't seem to get along; let's try this one instead"--and often seeing remarkable, immediate improvements. As to persisting with the gun they don't shoot well? That might lead to improvement, sure; but if it did, it could come at quite a cost.

I don't believe that inaccuracy can be blamed on the gun, but on the shooter

And, again, I completely disagree.

When the problem lies with the gun/shooter interaction, the fault can lie either with the gun (not right for that shooter) or the shooter (not trained to that gun). Saying that it's never the gun's fault in cases where changing the gun results in improvement is as illogical as saying that it's never the shooter's falut in cases where increase training results in improvement.

The maximum distance I'd be comfortable taking that shot with my 642 snub (my preferred gun in this particular scenario) would be at muzzle contact

Just as I said: many view the snub as a close-quarters specialty gun. The term "belly gun" never applied to 8 3/8-inchers!

 

[kcshooter]

As a trainer (often of beginners) I am very used to the idea of "that gun and you don't seem to get along; let's try this one instead"--and often seeing remarkable, immediate improvements.

Yes, but does that have anything to do with the gun's accuracy?

No. The gun is still accurate. The shooter fails to be accurate with that gun.

 

[Loosedhorse]

the gun's accuracy?

Interesting how often I am repeating things here...

As I have said many times now--starting with the thread's title! --I am not in this thread concerned with "the gun's" (intrinsic, or theoretical, or Ransom Rest) accuracy. I'm not that concerned with the practical accuracy achievable by the best, or most trained shooter in the world; or the best estimated "I'm pretty sure I can make that shot on a good day" individual accuracy.

But rather with what the individual shooter knows he can hit at longer distance, with everything on the line. With what that distance is, when the target is an active shooter with near-by innocents. And how to improve that distance.

Many here seem to be saying that sticking with the snub, but increasing training or experience, is the correct answer to making longer shots for all individual shooters--it's never the gun, always the shooter.

I still think that switching guns and then training with that might be the answer, at least for many shooters.

 

[Skribs]

Like I said, LH, you need to determine what shot you expect to take with that gun. If you will have your 1911 on you when there's the active shooter, take the shot with the 1911. If not, then DONT take the shot with the snub.

I also think we're focusing too much on one or the other - the gun or the shooter. This dichotomy is where we're getting hung up. The gun and the shooter work together. If you don't work together well, it won't work. It's just like a team - if the individuals are good, but are not trained to work together, don't know each other, and maybe even don't like each other (he hurts my hand every time I go to the range), then you're not going to work well as a TEAM. Similarly, if you are not familiar with a firearm, you won't work as well as a system.

Thus, the problem isn't the shooter or the gun, but familiarity. Therefore, familiarity must change. Since you obviously can't change yourself out for someone more familiar with the snub, you can either change the platform to something you have increased familiarity with, or you can train to increase your familiarity with that platform.

 

[David E]

Just as I said: many view the snub as a close-quarters specialty gun.

And many are short changing themselves, as it's capable of much more.

My comments referred specifically to your ill-considered scenario. But you knew that.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Thus, the problem isn't the shooter or the gun, but familiarity.

But, again, I think that some shooters profit much more from gaining familiarity with some guns rather than others--for some shooters, the increase in familiarity with a particular gun will result in very little accuracy improvement, IMHO, IMPE.

My comments referred specifically to your ill-considered scenario. But you knew that.

Just as you know that I don't consider the scenario ill considered at all, just realistic.

I invite you to give us an example (or several examples) of a different, "well considered" scenario in a new thread. Criticizing someone else's scenario is easier than creating your own.

 

[Striker]

You know, I think Skribs tag line says much:

Just because something works for the job, doesn't mean you can't have a better tool.
Just because something isn't the best tool for the job, doesn't mean it won't work.

And I think that we are all in violent agreement for the most part, though some emphasize the the first sentence, while others the second.

 

[Sam1911]

My comments referred specifically to your ill-considered scenario. But you knew that.

I don't see it as ill-considered, and I don't see any purpose in calling it so. If the question pertains to the given scenario, then answer the question. (Which I think you have -- no shot unless you're at belly distance and can angle it to avoid the bystanders.)

If you don't feel the scenario is possible/realistic, don't answer.

Gotta improve the ration of light to heat...

 

[David E]

I don't consider the scenario ill considered at all, just realistic.

Where ANY miss (or over penetration) will hit/kill an innocent......yeah, ok...

UNLESS you're at muzzle contact range with ANY gun, even one with an 8 3/8ths" barrel, it's reckless to take a shot in that scenario.

 

[Sam1911]

UNLESS you're at muzzle contact range with ANY gun, even one with an 8 3/8ths" barrel, it's reckless to take a shot in that scenario.

We've discussed such impossible problems before and the risks may outweigh the danger they are already in from the threat. Or the harm the threat is willfully about to enact on them may outweigh the considerable risk that you may inadvertently wound (or even kill) one.

If that does not seem realistic, then simply insert the words "is likely to" in place of "will".