Snubbie "tactical" accuracy?

[Loosedhorse]

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.

And again, I disagree with either your view of the scenario, or your take on the meaning of "reckless", or both.

I think the hyperbole of your statement is easily demonstrated. Let's say you're one inch away from muzzle contact--that's a reckless shot, but contact isn't? How about two inches away?

True: at some point, any individual shooter will reach a distance at which he considers the shot unwise (though perhaps not yet reckless). Whether that distance is measured in inches, or feet, or yards is up to the indivdual--and we do seem to have several individuals here saying that they don't think a 25-yard shot in this scenario (the way they envision it) would be reckless.

But you're welcome to your opinion, of course. <deleted>

 

[David E]

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

I would, but its not my scenario.

He said "ANY miss will harm an innocent," which means any hit resulting in an over penetration can hit/kill an innocent.

In that scenario, I'm getting out of there!!

But the OP offers it in an apparent attempt to discover what distances people "are comfortable" taking a shot with a snubnose. Adding the "ANY miss (or my extrapolated over penetration) will hit/kill an innocent" element totally changes the dynamic of what he is allegedly trying to find out.

A better scenario to learn that answer is this:

Shopping mall, loon with a rifle starts shooting. Your family is somewhere in the mall, you don't know where. You have a clear shot, he's against a stone wall. The longer you wait, or take time to move closer, the more people he shoots. If you fire and miss, he'll become aware of you and give you his full attention.....with his rifle.

How far away will you take THAT shot?

 

[Sam1911]

Ok... maybe the question does deserve to be re-framed. Or split into questions of "misses are bad" vs. "misses are unacceptable." When will you almost certainly be able to make the shot, and when will you be absolutely assured you will make the shot?

 

[Loosedhorse]

I get the distinction.

In terms of certainty, I was talking about mindset. I think many slow-fire target shooters and hunters know that being certain you took a great shot doesn't make it so...but we are are still looking for that mental certainty behind our shots, even realizing that reality can be different.

As to the probability of misses harming innocents, again I most concerned with trying to screen out "Oh, absolutely, I can make a two-hundred-yard shot--I've done it twice!"-type comments, and looking instead for the "I know my skill and I can and will make this shot at this distance"-type comments. Also, if innocents are in the open and the shooter is not standing in front of a known safe backstop (not unreasonable "if"s, I'd think) I'd rather assume the probability of harm to bystanders from a miss was soberingly high than dismissively low.

He said "ANY miss will harm an innocent,"

Ah. Since you have decided to "quote" my words, could you please remind me where I used them? I can't seem to find those words, except in your post of course.

totally changes the dynamic of what he is allegedly trying to find out.

Sure, exactly as I have said, repeatedly: away from the casual "I'm pretty sure I can make that shot on a good day" to the life-and-death "I know I can make that shot." That was intentional on my part.

Shopping mall, loon

Again, I renew my sincere invitation to you: if you are going to propose scenarios of your own and ask questions about them, to please do that in your own thread, not this one, to avoid hijacking. I will not comment on your scenarios here, but would be happy to in your thread.

 

[BCRider]

<Put it in another thread.>

Loosedhorse, I keep seeing your references to the idea that the gun is somehow to blame for the lack of dedication to practicing on the part of the owner. If the owner isn't willing to put the time and ammo into training themself then it's hardly the gun's fault. Let's lay the blame where it should be properly placed, on the owner.

Sure, the gun&owner as a system may not function as well as this same owner in combination with some other gun. But if this situation isn't corrected through practice along with some other solution such as better grips then shame on the owner for not being responsible enough to gain the skills and fit needed to properly control where they put their bullets.

 

[David E]

Since you have decided to "quote" my words, could you please remind me where I used them? I can't seem to find those words, except in your post of course.

Gladly. Post #1

I thought about a more realistic scenario: an active shooter, with innocents near-by, so that IF YOU MISS, YOU'RE HURTING INNOCENTS, not helping them.

Caps added for clarity.

 

[BCRider]

I forgot to add a little something.

I'm not one of the privilaged few that is allowed to own the short barreled "prohibited" category hanguns. But I've gotten the chance to shoot a J frame S&W a couple of times now that belonged to those who are able to own and shoot them.

Even with the poor fitting grips I was easily able to keep all the shots within the -0 COM are on an IDPA target at around 15 yards when shot at a fair pace. If the gun were mine and I was able to fit it with better grips and practice with it I have no doubt that I could achieve the same accuracy at 35'ish yards.

Now when you toss in the huge adrenaline surge of a real life scenario it changes everything. A so-so shooter may not be greatly affected and could hit the COM at 50 yards. A great shooter may be shaking so much that they would be lucky to hit the wall behind the rifle toting loon. Asking at what range we would take such a shot simply does not make any sense for anyone that has not had to face an actual live BG with a gun. No one can tell what it will do to their skill and mindset other than to reduce their capabilities by some amount.

If for some reason the gun and I simply never did click despite grip changes to where I could do pie plate shots with it consistently at 35 yards I'd likely sell it. But given my experience to date I don't see this happening.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Your words:

"ANY miss will harm an innocent,"

My words:

IF YOU MISS, YOU'RE HURTING INNOCENTS, not helping them.

Perhaps you are unconcerned about accuracy, but if you're going to use quotation marks, get the words right.

If you care to know, the reason I used the "hurting/helping" (not "harming" or "injuring") words in my OP is the idea that even a missed shot that doesn't then hit innocents still "hurts" them by putting them at risk; just like a shot that hits the shooter "helps" innocents even if it doesn't stop the active shooter, by making it less likely he will continue.

 

[Sam1911]

Yeah. Lets focus here. One scenario, discuss it or don't.

Other scenarios, other threads.

 

[David E]

even a missed shot doesn't then hit innocents still "hurts" them by putting them at risk; just like a shot that hits the shooter "helps" innocents even if it doesn't stop the active shooter, by making it less likely he will continue....

................of course.

However:

Hurt

- verb (used with object)
1.
to cause bodily injury to; injure: He was badly hurt in the accident.
2.
to cause bodily pain to or in: The wound still hurts him.
3.
to damage or decrease the efficiency of (a material object) by striking, rough use, improper care, etc.
4.
to affect adversely; harm
5.
to cause mental pain to; offend or grieve

Apparently, only #5 applies.

Enjoy the rest of your thread.

 

[kcshooter]

If you care to know, the reason I used the "hurting/helping" (not "harming" or "injuring") words in my OP is the idea that even a missed shot doesn't then hit innocents still "hurts" them by putting them at risk

That certainly wasn't clear, if that was indeed what you meant.

I think the context of the OP leads most reasonable people to believe that "IF YOU MISS, YOU'RE HURTING INNOCENTS" would mean injury to the bystanders.

 

[Loosedhorse]

That certainly wasn't clear

Then I apologize, and am glad I had the opportunity to clarify now. Especially if it eliminates a distraction from the topic of the distance at which we would or should consider the use of snubbies in that scenario.

Again, I was trying to avoid any idea of "suppressive fire" or "well, even if I miss, that gives him something to think about, and he might stop shooting" since I am trying to get a handle on confident distances at which the threat can be hit, not "almost hit." So I wanted to rule out the "a near miss is as good as a hit" idea.

 

[Skribs]

Thanks Striker, I always appreciate a compliment on my sig line . It used to be specifically relating to caliber wars, but I figured I'd expand on it to make it fit all of these types of topics.

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.

Why? I'm not being facetious, but that's the question you have to ask when you look at the benefit of gaining proficiency. Why would this training benefit me? Is that worth it over this other training?

In your scenario, we have a snub-nose revolver vs. let's say a fully customized 1911; grips are a perfect fit and it's capable of out-shooting anyone. Yes, if you anticipate needing the long range shot, it would be better to practice with that 1911. That's familiarizing yourself with two things - fundamentals of distance shooting and distance shooting with a 1911.

Now you throw in the snub. You may understand distance shooting better than you had before you practiced with the 1911, but you need to practice it with the snub to be proficient with the snub. Personally, if all you carry is the snub, I don't see a reason to practice with the 1911. If you mostly carry both, the snub as a backup, then very little reason to practice the distance shot with the snub. However, if you carry the snub as EDC, but the 1911 only some of the time, then you want to practice with both.

At least, that's my take on it. I think you should practice with what you use. It's why I don't, and will never own a .22. I also don't plan to take a shot at someone at a greater distance than any length in my house, so I have no desire to practice distance shooting.

---

As to your scenario, there is one question, but people are breaking it into two:

1) Would you be confident in your ability to hit the target?
2) Would you be okay with the risks involved in taking that shot?

1 is purely a marksmanship thing, and a lot of people have said they would be confident at various ranges. This is almost the Practical Accuracy you were talking about, even though it is under the impression that the circumstances are beyond the paper target.

2, however, is where people get hung up. Especially in the scenario of an active shooter where innocents are near the line of fire. What is best for YOU is to escape. What is best for the most number of people is to stop this man. Can you live with what happens if you miss?

Personally, if I was comfortable that I could make a hit, I probably would take the shot. At least, that's what I'm saying right now - I don't honestly know what I'd do in a real situation because I've never been in one.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Personally, if I was comfortable that I could make a hit, I probably would take the shot. At least, that's what I'm saying right now - I don't honestly know what I'd do in a real situation because I've never been in one.

I agree. Very hard to know.

1) Would you be confident in your ability to hit the target?
2) Would you be okay with the risks involved in taking that shot?

I think that's a fair split. I think #1 has more to do with shooting at a target ranges--if I miss, so big deal, I'll take another shot, or hang another target--and #2 with that more difficult question of, if missing has consequences (real probability that innocents are harmed, or that the shooter now turns his attention to you) am I going to take this shot from X distance.

Originally, when this question first came up for snubs, I felt kind of buried by the vagueness: I "should" be able to "hit" "a threat at distance" with a snub. As I probed, it seemed to me that "hit" actually meant "come close to and maybe hit", with misses seeming to be a positive as long as they were near-misses; and the "threat" was somehow far away enough that hitting was a challenge, but close enough that I couldn't hide or run away.

The scenario I posed (and everything else in the thread) has been an attempt to get at (as much as possible) what is the snub's range for such a shot for most people. I completely acccept that there are those out there ringing a 1-ft gong from 50 yards all day, and they would have no problem taking the shot at 50 yards or beyond. That there are others who ring the gong all day, but might not feel good about the shot except at much closer range, if at all.

And many who might have a shorter acceptable distance for a snub than for another pistol. So, I am trying to get a handle on, well, what is this max distance (for each individual responding) for a actual high-stakes, can't afford to miss SD shot with a snub, beyond which we would not take the shot? And would we take a farther shot with a different handgun?

And I think some folks are managing some pretty clear answers, despite it being a tough question.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I've shot many snubnoses (Smith and Colt) double action that were very close to being as accurate as any handgun I've ever shot.. shotgun shells at 25 yards and coke cans at fifty.

 

[Loosedhorse]

coke cans at fifty.

Hit them with first ("cold") shot of the day? Every time?

Again, just trying to be clear if we're talking about what "the guns can do" when everything is just right, versus what the shooter can deliver with that gun, on command, with a very high level of repeatability and confidence.

But it's clear you see no need to go to a different gun for 50-yard shots; maybe beyond. Thanks.

 

[Certaindeaf]

^
Yes. I used to shoot revolvers a great deal back in the day.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Cool. Well done!

 

[Loosedhorse]

One other question, Certaindeaf...

What ammo did you use for those 50 yards shots?

 

[Old Fuff]

Sam:

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.

I am sure you are aware that along the U.S.-Mexican Border in parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California there is a lot of drug & people smuggling going on. Often this involves a group of people (sometimes carrying drugs, sometimes not) that are escorted by rifle-armed guards. They’re principal purpose is to “discourage” members of other cartels in the same business from hijacking whatever they are protecting, or possibly send a message to a border patrolman or deputy sheriff. If one is out-and-about they may expectedly encounter one of these groups and find themselves the object of some “stay away” shots. The distance is unlikely to be less then 75 yards, and usually considerably more.

This is part of the reason that Arizona went from a state constitutional restriction on concealed carry, to for all practical purposes no restrictions at all. Thus it is unusual now to find people in the border area that aren’t armed with something.

Sometimes if someone is taking what might be called “warning fire” they send a few shots back so that the shooter knows that the object of their attention is also capable of shooting back, all this while they withdraw as quickly as they possibly can. Frankly in this picture no one is interested in a stand-your-ground gunfight.

Under the above circumstances I would hope that I wasn’t armed with anything but a .38 snubby, but if I were I would do what I have described above. If the individual that was shooting at me didn’t stop, and was not behind cover he might get an unexpected surprise. That said, the usual outcome is that all parties find a serious need to be somewhere else very quickly.

If you don’t think that “suppressive fire” is a good term to describe what I’ve posted feel free to think of something else.

 

[Certaindeaf]

What ammo did you use for those 50 yards shots?

Many but mainly 148gr WC, 110gr+p HP's and 158gr SWC's.

 

[Sam1911]

If you don’t think that “suppressive fire” is a good term to describe what I’ve posted feel free to think of something else.

Surely, that fits. But obviously, there are not items/people in the target area you're too concerned about hitting, either, or you wouldn't risk such a shot!

 

[Loosedhorse]

Many but mainly 148gr WC, 110gr+p HP's and 158gr SWC's

Thanks. It helps to know that was done with more than one load; suggests that finding a carry load that might do that with any given snubbie is more likely to be doable.

Still, not sure we'll have a lot of folks responding about Coke cans at 50 yards--but I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking in the first place.

 

[PRM]

I've been carrying and shooting snubs for over 30 years. Got a couple of Colt Detective Specials and a S&W Model 60 and 649. Out to 25 yards - I see little difference in a 2 inch from a 4 inch revolver. Comes down to practice. Do your part and the gun is more than capable of holding up its end. I rarely shoot farther than that with a hand gun.

From an SD perspective I would say your looking at 7-10 yards which is far short of target distance.

 

[tomrkba]

Bob Munden shoots his J-Frames at 200 yards, so I don't know what you all are talking about with this 30 foot range.