Acceptable grouping size for Self Defense

[cshoff]

If you are AIMING in a deadly force encounter you have clearly missed (pun intended) the point of any relevant training...presuming, of course, you have had any training.

Be safe.

That is not so. It's been proven many times that even under the dynamics of a lethal force encounter, in many cases, the gunfight winner clearly remembers achieving a perfect/near perfect sight picture as he/she fired their gun. Now you certainly can't count on a perfect sight picture, and since a perfect sight picture isn't required for adequate defensive (combat) accuracy at nominal defensive ranges, we can allow for and accept some deviation from the perfect sight picture.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from that sights aren't used in defensive encounters. Clearly they can't be used under EVERY circumstance or when conditions call for you to shoot from retention, but they certainly can and SHOULD be used anytime you can bring the gun up to your sight plane. Every reputable instructor and training school I know of focuses MOST of their range time working towards developing shooting skills that involve sighted fire.

 

[cp1969]

There isn't any one-size-fits-all process for defensive shooting. Certainly, some situations call for aimed fire; others do not. I don't need to attain a sight picture to shoot someone who is an arm's length away. Nor do I want to point shoot at someone 35 yards away.

The technique varies with the situation.

 

[Kanewpadle]

There isn't any one-size-fits-all process for defensive shooting. Certainly, some situations call for aimed fire; others do not. I don't need to attain a sight picture to shoot someone who is an arm's length away. Nor do I want to point shoot at someone 35 yards away.

The technique varies with the situation.

After some thought, I think you said it best.

 

[Martya]

Much good advice here.
I am a complete amateur. I read a lot and practice as often as I can. I have 3 brothers who are cops, and a friend who manages a large protection company, so I get LOTS of advice.

For defensive practice, bench resting your defensive pistol or revolver and trying to get 2" groups at 25 yards make little sense to me, unless you are testing the actual accuracy of you and the gun. As stated many times most defensive shooting occurs within 8 yards. I know for me trying to hit a bulls eye at 25 or 50 yards is futile, I can't hardly see it with open iron sights anyway. And unless someone is actually shooting at me at 25 or more yards, or some other reason I can't think of, I don't think I would consider them a threat.

If you hold a 8" paper plate (or 8 1/2x11 paper folded to 8x8 ish) over the center of your chest, you can see that hitting that just about anywhere would cause sudden and significant health issues. The 7-8 yard 'standard' that most people state for self-defense practice is due to the estimate of the distance a goblin can cover in 2 seconds if attacking you. In a stressful situation your adrenalin will be flowing, you will have to rely on muscle memory.

Few years ago I started this way: You should be able to draw and shoot 2 in the paper plate within 2 seconds at 7-8 yards. This is a good beginner practice. Work on accuracy first - hitting the paper every time with those 1st 2 shots, then develop speed. Then try dropping to one knee and shoot, peeking around a barrier and shoot, laying on your back and shoot, all within 2 seconds.

There are a myriad of "self-help" drills you can do, lacking professional training in a class environment. A Google search found this pretty comprehensive list of practice drills, from flinch and dry-fire to multiple target:

http://practicalfirearmstraining.com/reading/HandgunDrillsPDF.pdf

HTH

 

[oldman45]

I understand that most Law Enforcement Agencies say that most gun fights happen within 7 yards but does anyone know how much (or if) the distance differs from what a citizen would face on the streets?

My opinion, FWIW, is that most confrontations that could escalate into a deadly force situation will be closer than 20 feet. In the open air, you do not have the protection of the Castle Doctrine. A person appearing to be stalking you is not going to justify pulling a sidearm. Perps are not the brightest of people but even they do not begin threatening you from 50 feet. The more distance one has between them and the threat will also mean the more time to flee.

The last justified self defense case I worked was where a lady shot a man as she was pushed down and he was beating her while on top of her. She pulled and fired and he fell & died. They were so close, she had powder burns on her.

Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

 

[oldman45]

That is not so. It's been proven many times that even under the dynamics of a lethal force encounter, in many cases, the gunfight winner clearly remembers achieving a perfect/near perfect sight picture as he/she fired their gun. Now you certainly can't count on a perfect sight picture, and since a perfect sight picture isn't required for adequate defensive (combat) accuracy at nominal defensive ranges, we can allow for and accept some deviation from the perfect sight picture.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from that sights aren't used in defensive encounters. Clearly they can't be used under EVERY circumstance or when conditions call for you to shoot from retention, but they certainly can and SHOULD be used anytime you can bring the gun up to your sight plane. Every reputable instructor and training school I know of focuses MOST of their range time working towards developing shooting skills that involve sighted fire.

Well, not sure how many cases you have worked but I respectfully disagree in a couple of areas. Not once in 38 yrs have I had a justified shooting where the threat was far enough away to get time to aim and fire. The cases I worked where people had time to aim were in home invasions or in situations where the homeowner was expecting the door to give way, the guy was climbing in a window or such. One that stands out happened about 10 yrs ago and it involved a store owner watching his employee being robbed at gun point as he was concealed. He did not accurately aim but loosely aimed as he shot the bad guy. It is my belief that people refer to them aiming when actually they are closer to point shooting in times of stress.

If I have the time to get an accurate sight alignment, I have time to use other options in MOST CASES.

 

[cshoff]

Well, not sure how many cases you have worked but I respectfully disagree in a couple of areas. Not once in 38 yrs have I had a justified shooting where the threat was far enough away to get time to aim and fire. The cases I worked where people had time to aim were in home invasions or in situations where the homeowner was expecting the door to give way, the guy was climbing in a window or such. One that stands out happened about 10 yrs ago and it involved a store owner watching his employee being robbed at gun point as he was concealed. He did not accurately aim but loosely aimed as he shot the bad guy. It is my belief that people refer to them aiming when actually they are closer to point shooting in times of stress.

If I have the time to get an accurate sight alignment, I have time to use other options in MOST CASES.

So let me get this right. You are going to cite actual SD cases where people used sighted fire (which actually supports what I said in my post), and then you are going to "respectfully disagree" and say that you've never worked a case where the good guy had time to achieve a sight picture? Are you kidding me?

Your experiences, as extensive as they may be, are not all-inclusive and represent only a tiny fraction of SD shootings that took place over that same 38 year time period. I've read dozens of debriefings of actual SD shootings over the years and have seen numerous cases where the shooter lamented his or her "using the sights", "looking at the sights", or getting a "sight picture"; both law enforcement and civilian. In fact, I believe Mr. Ayoob has talked about several such cases in a couple of his books.

As I mentioned earlier, sighted fire is certainly not always possible or plausible in a lethal force encounter. The dynamics of the event will dictate what you can or can't do at the moment. However, sighted fire is regularly used by people in SD situations, even if only crudely. If getting a sight picture that allows you adequate defensive accuracy is taking you so long, then you might take a serious look at the rest of your technique, because you should be able to achieve that sight picture simultaneously while you perform your press out.

 

[Lost Lake]

Much good advice here.
I am a complete amateur. I read a lot and practice as often as I can. I have 3 brothers who are cops, and a friend who manages a large protection company, so I get LOTS of advice.

For defensive practice, bench resting your defensive pistol or revolver and trying to get 2" groups at 25 yards make little sense to me, unless you are testing the actual accuracy of you and the gun. As stated many times most defensive shooting occurs within 8 yards. I know for me trying to hit a bulls eye at 25 or 50 yards is futile, I can't hardly see it with open iron sights anyway. And unless someone is actually shooting at me at 25 or more yards, or some other reason I can't think of, I don't think I would consider them a threat.

If you hold a 8" paper plate (or 8 1/2x11 paper folded to 8x8 ish) over the center of your chest, you can see that hitting that just about anywhere would cause sudden and significant health issues. The 7-8 yard 'standard' that most people state for self-defense practice is due to the estimate of the distance a goblin can cover in 2 seconds if attacking you. In a stressful situation your adrenalin will be flowing, you will have to rely on muscle memory.

Few years ago I started this way: You should be able to draw and shoot 2 in the paper plate within 2 seconds at 7-8 yards. This is a good beginner practice. Work on accuracy first - hitting the paper every time with those 1st 2 shots, then develop speed. Then try dropping to one knee and shoot, peeking around a barrier and shoot, laying on your back and shoot, all within 2 seconds.

There are a myriad of "self-help" drills you can do, lacking professional training in a class environment. A Google search found this pretty comprehensive list of practice drills, from flinch and dry-fire to multiple target:

http://practicalfirearmstraining.com/reading/HandgunDrillsPDF.pdf

HTH

I like this advice!

 

[APS]

I find the distances that people decide in advance that a person isn't a threat to them interesting. Is the perpetrator's weapon somehow rendered useless beyond a set distance?

One should practice aimed AND unaimed fire. Only within the last 20 years or so have more citizens actually received valuable firearms training for the guns that they have purchased to protect themselves. You shouldn't say that b/c a victim in the late 1970's who received their firearms training from TV shows like Hawaii 5-0, got lucky in their self defense shooting, that you don't have to practice aimed fire at farther than bad breath distance if you are truly planning for the worst.

 

[Erich]

My answer to the original post question is 4" at ten yards, fast. The (many) handgun shooting cases I've worked on have convinced me that it's a good idea to target specific anatomical structures in an attacker. (I have therefore studied anatomy to know where they'll be from various angles.) I feel that I'm competent to use a handgun for defense when I can rapidly (I don't have a set time for this - just to my satisfaction) put five shots into a circle that's 4" across at ten yards.

 

[jdesro1911]

I guess my whole issue is the concept of "acceptable" or "good enough". A couple people have touched on it, but I believe that there is never a level you can just say "OK, I can draw and hit a 10" paper plate in 1.5 sec. at 15 feet - I'm satisfied."
In my opinion, when you reach that level, then you should then try your hardest to get to the next level - a 5" paper plate at 15 feet from the draw in 1.5 sec. And when you can do that, a 3x5 index card.

My point is, I don't think you can just say "good enough" when it comes to a skill that has the potential to save your life. You should always strive to be the best you can. Sure, you may never be able to reach the skill level where you can hit a 3x5 index card at 25 yards from the draw in a second flat, but you should never stop trying to get to that level.

 

[photoman]

The original question implies something that can be quite dangerous to the person shooting in self defense. Standing still, shooting at a paper target with a perfect sight picture is poor training for real life. In all probability, that type of response with get you shot at the least and get you dead at the most.

Static firing range marksmanship is important, but don't fool youself into thinking that you're "good to go" if you can shoot a small grouping. Being able to shoot on the move with a poor (or no) sight picture is very important skill to have in order to surve a gunfight.

 

[oldman45]

I find the distances that people decide in advance that a person isn't a threat to them interesting. Is the perpetrator's weapon somehow rendered useless beyond a set distance?
.

All I am saying is that distance is also figured into the difference between justified and a possible homicide charge.

A man threatening a person from 50 ft is not a major threat. An person walking out your back door with gun in hand at 50 feet is not a threat unless he raises or points the gun at someone. Police officers routinely confront armed people but they cannot shoot just because the person is armed.

Granted, I do not want to see someone walking toward me with a gun in hand thirty feet away and if I do, I am going to try to be ready for a potential attack. Walking out of Walmart at night and into an armed person confronting me from 10 feet away will not allow me to respond and this is the most common type of event. I recently wrote about an officer standing in front of a store talking with an employee late at night. A young male pulled in as if to go inside but got just a few feet from the officer, pulled a gun and fatally shot the officer. A person cannot train for such or defend himself in that type scene, let alone get a proper sight stance.

Each year a lot of people are charged in shootings they felt justified but the courts saw it differently. Distance and other options are to be considered if possible. A few yrs back, I was confronted by an intoxicated individual with a .38 pointed at my chest. I was armed but remained calm and slowly backed away until he pulled off still pointing the gun at me. All I did was call it in and let patrol officers respond. He was located and arrested and I learned he had already threatened a uniformed sheriff deputy in the same way a few minutes earlier. The deputy chose the same action I did. Either of us would have been justified in drawing on the man but common sense dictated it was not the right thing to do at the time.

I still maintain that most shootings take place so fast that proper sighting is not possible and this is why so many gunfights result in total misses on both sides.

 

[photoman]

I still maintain that most shootings take place so fast that proper sighting is not possible and this is why so many gunfights result in total misses on both sides.

That and the fact that most people have never received any training in accurately firing a gun ~without~ using the sights.

 

[Jack66]

Definetly a lot of good information flowing here, Thanks!

Not meaning to sound like an amateur but can somone please clearify for me what "point shoot" is? I have seen this mentioned in a couple of posts.

 

[cshoff]

All I am saying is that distance is also figured into the difference between justified and a possible homicide charge.

A man threatening a person from 50 ft is not a major threat. An person walking out your back door with gun in hand at 50 feet is not a threat unless he raises or points the gun at someone. Police officers routinely confront armed people but they cannot shoot just because the person is armed.

Granted, I do not want to see someone walking toward me with a gun in hand thirty feet away and if I do, I am going to try to be ready for a potential attack. Walking out of Walmart at night and into an armed person confronting me from 10 feet away will not allow me to respond and this is the most common type of event. I recently wrote about an officer standing in front of a store talking with an employee late at night. A young male pulled in as if to go inside but got just a few feet from the officer, pulled a gun and fatally shot the officer. A person cannot train for such or defend himself in that type scene, let alone get a proper sight stance.

Each year a lot of people are charged in shootings they felt justified but the courts saw it differently. Distance and other options are to be considered if possible. A few yrs back, I was confronted by an intoxicated individual with a .38 pointed at my chest. I was armed but remained calm and slowly backed away until he pulled off still pointing the gun at me. All I did was call it in and let patrol officers respond. He was located and arrested and I learned he had already threatened a uniformed sheriff deputy in the same way a few minutes earlier. The deputy chose the same action I did. Either of us would have been justified in drawing on the man but common sense dictated it was not the right thing to do at the time.

I still maintain that most shootings take place so fast that proper sighting is not possible and this is why so many gunfights result in total misses on both sides.

And I would agree with most of what you said here. There are some situations that you simply can't be prepared for. An ambush is called an ambush for a reason, and while it's possible to train for how to respond once you've realized you are being ambushed, it's not always possible to detect an ambush before one happens. A person who slips into your personal space, undetected, places a gun against your head and pulls the trigger, is going to win the fight 99.99% of the time, no matter how advanced your shooting skills.

I always advocate "avoid, evade, retreat" whenever possible, and using force only as an absolute last resort. That said, the actions you must take are ultimately determined by your adversary, and it behooves us to always be prepared for the absolute worse situation.

 

[cshoff]

Definetly a lot of good information flowing here, Thanks!

Not meaning to sound like an amateur but can somone please clearify for me what "point shoot" is? I have seen this mentioned in a couple of posts.

You may get several different definitions, depending on who you ask, but IMHO, true "point shooting" is shooting the gun from any position that does not afford you the ability to visually use the sights or barrel of the gun to index the weapon to the target. An example of "point shooting" would be "shooting from the hip".

On the other hand, if you are visually able to index the gun to the target, either by using the sights or some other visual reference point on the gun, then it is "sighted fire", even if it is "roughly sighted". You are still visually aligning the target, the gun, and your eye in some sort of sight plane.

 

[photoman]

On the other hand, if you are visually able to index the gun to the target, either by using the sights or some other visual reference point on the gun, then it is "sighted fire", even if it is "roughly sighted". You are still visually aligning the target, the gun, and your eye in some sort of sight plane.

Certainly a debateable definition of point shooting.

 

[cshoff]

Certainly a debateable definition of point shooting.

That was a definition of "sighted fire".

 

[Jester84]

Personally, I rather get off more shots in a bigger group (4"- 6" inches) quicker over a few shots in a smaller group (2" - 3" inches) at a slower pace. Combat accuracy. Someone is trying to do harm/kill me or others around me and I want to stop the threat as quick as possible.