Self defense gun sight in

[Jellybean]

Pete, no problem, and I didn't tell anyone that their way of sighting in their handgun was wrong, I just gave my opinion. And no it wasn't job related, it happened at home. With all the times I fell off my mountain bike I figured it would be the death of me, but never got hurt, then one winter day I take the garbage out and slip on the ice, it was all in the way I hit the ground.

Posted by writerinmo;
I don't really recall anyone saying that it couldn't be done, just that it was an unlikely scenario.

That's what I'd said too, I think everyone jumped to the conclusion that I was having mall ninja fantasies instead of reading what I was really writing.

 

[writerinmo]

Reading back over the post, I only see one post regarding the 'mall ninja' status, then one other member agreeing with them.

I think that the biggest exception that most had with the 100 yard was that the original poster was obviously new to either handguns or CCW, (If I'm wrong on that, Celtic, feel free to yell at me for assuming that point!) and telling someone to zero a handgun at 100 yards at that skill level would more than likely frustrate them and possibly make them think their firearm was a hunk of junk since they couldnt hit the bull at 100. There are very few natural born marksmen out there, for most its a learned science over years of shooting, more shooting and even more shooting. The practicality of establishing a good shooting style is even more important at the start than marksmanship, as a poor style can prevent someone from ever becoming proficient at it.

Overall, based on Celtic's last post, I think he has a good idea as to what to do, and how to do it.

 

[ASA335]

celticfisherman:

My apologies. I interjected into this post without addressing your original question.

Out to maybe fifteen feet, it's pretty much reactive with little if any time to carefully align sights; but you're asking about setting adjustable sights to a given distance, so I'd recommend that you set them to whatever range you can comfortably and consistently fire a respectable group at, and then I'd recommend that you learn to fire good groups at greater ranges (even 50 - 100 yards) and adjust the sights accordingly. Learn the difference in point of impact at distances closer and further out - you'll probably be surprised how little difference there is short of 100 yards with typical defensive handgun loads.

I'd also add that most of your training time should be closer than ten yards, but some training out to greater distances can have a positive effect.

At your service,

 

[oldman45]

If a person has time to aim properly using a correct sight picture, there is no immediate threat.

While not directing this at any one person or group, if I were to investigate a handgun shooting at 100 yards that was claimed to be self defense, I would suggest to the District Attorney that the shooter go to jail. A hundred yard shot is not self defense.

There are many options for fleeing or avoidance to a confrontation at 100 yards. Should the other side have a rifle, you are already outgunned and need to leave immediately.

 

[jlynch34]

10 yards sounds like the idea distance for the purpose of this gun.

Jerry

 

[Jellybean]

I didn't make any assumptions about celticfisherman, his abilities or his experience, he asked what distance I think a self defense gun should be zeroed in for and I told him. Just because a person asks a question here doesn't mean he doesn't know anything at all. I am starting to wonder about some of the other posters knowledge though.

writerinmo, Just exactly what aren't you getting here? I am not telling anyone to go out and start shooting at 100 yds, you don't have to shoot at 100 yds to sight your gun in at 100 yds. No matter what difference your gun is sighted in for, it will still work at other distances... Even a beginner can shoot a handgun with a 100 yard zero, most people wouldn't know the difference anyway. If you zero your gun in at 100 yds, it will be accurate enough for combat shooting at any distance you will ever likely have to use it. How much simpler can I put it?

Edit: I had started to write a lot more in response to other posters, but decided not to since their comments, remarks and posts are just so asinine they're not worth giving attention to, or even repeating.

 

[oldman45]

Nobody knows what may arise in a SD situation. I seriously doubt a 100 yard attack. At that distance, you could not really even see an individual with a handgun and a long gun would be remote. So why sight in for the virtually non existent potential?

A person would more likely to have someone slip up behind them to rob or even slit their throat. How does one prepare for that?

According to figures researched by agenices that study such, most shots fired instances happen at distances less than 20 feet. Ironically, most of the fired bullets missed their targets at that distance.

People would be best served to practice point & shoot SD situations. Even then, stress and fear causes a lot of training to go out the window.

 

[writerinmo]

Zeroing in a handgun at 100 yards is a daunting task even for an experienced shooter and makes no sense at all. Sighting it in at the distance that most self defense shooting takes place does. Period.

Jellybean, you are arguing just to argue. If you paid any attention at all to the pistol that Celtic is talking about you would see how ludicrous it would be to do more than a bit of recreational shooting at 100 yards. With a 6" barrel, sure, do it so you know where it might hit. With a 4" barrel... um, maybe, just for the hell of it. And of course, no one has addressed that any change in ammo at all would make the whole exercise just pointless other than the fact that you are out shooting, which is always a good day...

 

[oldman45]

There is a lot of discussion about sighting in for a potential self defense problem.

I attended a class last February that involved teaching observation, cover and conealment. It was likely one of the most informative classes I ever had to attend. I will toss some of it out here for personal reflection.

For instance: You are pulling into a convenience store for a bottle of coke, smokes or newspaper. Where do you park? Did you park directly in front of the store? Can someone inside see you approaching? If so, a bad guy in the store will catch you off guard as you walk inside. By parking so you can see in the store before making your presence known, you can create an upper hand by observing what you are walking into since you parked away from the front door and looking through the store front as you walk by. If trouble is there, you keep walking past and call it in.

Can you see the clerk? Is he standing there looking at a customer? Is he even visible? Is his hands raised?

You walk inside the store and began looking for the needed items and realize there is a bad guy robbing the clerk. Do you get behind a rack of potato chip bags to make a stand or do you crouch behind a soft drink box? You may have concealment behind a potato chip rack but you do not have protective cover. Remain where you have some vision of what is going on while remaining out of sight and out of mind. Doing so allows you to have time to properly understand the situation and determine a plan of action.

The potential for this scene is a lot greater than having a 100 yard SD shooting. I had two days of this course and possible scenes were enlightning in that I never considered many of them. But back in 1969, a friend I went to school with (a local officer) was shot as he entered a store that had just been robbed. There was no warning. He parked in front of the store, got out of his unit and began to walk inside. The robber exited the store shooting.

This is such that people need to be prepared for, not 100 yard shots for SD.

 

[Jellybean]

writerinmo, let me go through this piece by piece, and no, I'm not just looking for an arugument.

Zeroing in a handgun at 100 yards is a daunting task even for an experienced shooter and makes no sense at all.

For these examples we'll use a Winchester .357 145 gr. Silvertip factory load, fired from a 4" barrel. I got the ballistic data using the link given at the beginning of this thread.

If you want to zero this round in using a 100 yd. zero, all you would do is sit down at a bench 10 yds. away from your target and set your sights until they strike .66" above the point of aim. That is not daunting at all. With this load the highest point of impact from 0 to 100 yards will be about 3.02" which is suitable given the amount of accuracy that will be expected from a shooting situation anyway.

Sighting it in at the distance that most self defense shooting takes place does. Period.

Most shooting occur at very close distances, less than 20 ft. First of all most people do not use their sights in shooting situations, period. Secondly, wether your gun is zeroed to hit dead on at 20 ft, or at 100 yds, if you were to use your sights at that distance the difference would be so minimal you would never be able to tell. Remember, when you sighted in at 10 yards you were only .66 inches above the poa, so how high do you think it is going to be at 20 ft.? You couldn't keep your shots within the half an inch difference anyway. Thirdly, most of the people that I talked to after a shooting stated they shot low because they actually looked over their sights instead of through them, if your gun is zeroed to shoot high, it will be to your benefit. And fourthly, somewhere between 0 and 10 yards, the bullet will be crossing the line of sight so there will be another "zero" in there, which should satisfy most people that think the zero should be too close. If you use a better ballistics program that charts the bullets path you can get an idea of where the bullets path is without having to shoot up your ammunition to find it.

If you paid any attention at all to the pistol that Celtic is talking about you would see how ludicrous it would be to do more than a bit of recreational shooting at 100 yards. With a 6" barrel, sure, do it so you know where it might hit. With a 4" barrel... um, maybe, just for the hell of it. And of course, no one has addressed that any change in ammo at all would make the whole exercise just pointless other than the fact that you are out shooting, which is always a good day...

The lenght of his barrel, makes no difference in it's accuracy. A two inch barrel will shoot just as well as a 6 inch, the only difference will be a slight drop in velocity. In that case you shoot your ammo out of your gun over a chronograph and plug your velocity into a ballistics computer to get your results. I have a 2 1/2" model 19 which will put bullets into a target at 100 yards all day long. So will my 2" model 10 and my model 36. Take a look at a ballistics chart someday, you might find that there isn't all that much difference between different brands or types of ammo. I carried a model 65 and a model 657 on duty at various times. The mid range trajectory of both rounds was about 3.5", which saved me a lot of trying to figure out a new cartridge change.

 

[Chili Vega]

If a person has time to aim properly using a correct sight picture, there is no immediate threat.

While not directing this at any one person or group, if I were to investigate a handgun shooting at 100 yards that was claimed to be self defense, I would suggest to the District Attorney that the shooter go to jail. A hundred yard shot is not self defense.

There are many options for fleeing or avoidance to a confrontation at 100 yards. Should the other side have a rifle, you are already outgunned and need to leave immediately.

I have to strongly disagree with the first statement. I know too many people who have carried the day using their sights and the threat was immediate.

Suggesting that range alone will dictate whether a shooting is justifiable is also interesting. Where do you draw the line? What if the miscreant is at 43, 57, 62 or 78 yards? If you investigate shootings then you should know there are too many variables involved to justify your statement.

As far as leaving if the other guy has a rifle and you are outgunned. Sound advice, but may not be an option for some unknown reason. I may be "outgunned" but that does not mean I have to be "outfought" and I don't plan on giving up without a fight regardless of the distance.

As for the zero. I zero at 25 yards and shoot out to 100 so I know where to hold.

 

[oldman45]

I have to strongly disagree with the first statement. I know too many people who have carried the day using their sights and the threat was immediate.

Suggesting that range alone will dictate whether a shooting is justifiable is also interesting. Where do you draw the line? What if the miscreant is at 43, 57, 62 or 78 yards? If you investigate shootings then you should know there are too many variables involved to justify your statement.

As far as leaving if the other guy has a rifle and you are outgunned. Sound advice, but may not be an option for some unknown reason. I may be "outgunned" but that does not mean I have to be "outfought" and I don't plan on giving up without a fight regardless of the distance.

As for the zero. I zero at 25 yards and shoot out to 100 so I know where to hold.

I have investigated more cases than I want to remember. As recently as this morning, I got a shooting case from last night. Over the 38 yrs since college, I have worked about 40 officer involved shootings. To my memory, not one had time to get proper sighting. Yes, there were times when an officer approached with proper sighting and those are plentiful but then most people will not do anything stupid when a uniformed officer is looking down the sights of a gun aimed at you.

Each case is different. The law is fairly explicit in what is justifiable. Those that are not get tried. Those that are get a free pass (although not always free) and those in between are presented to a grand jury. It is difficult to be threatened from 50 feet away unless the person already has a gun on you and in that case, best not try drawing yours. A person can shoot a lot faster than a person can draw. Regardless, distance and threat level will be heavily considered in deciding guilt. I worked a case 3-4 yrs ago where a bar fight had occurred. One guy got himself whipped and threatened retaliation. As the winner got to his car, the loser called him
back out. The winner thought the guy was going to shoot him so a gun came from under the seat and he shot the guy. Yes, the guy had a weapon but it was not produced and was found in his back pocket (Titan 25acp). But at over 40 feet, the shooter could not see a weapon but surmized there was one and immediately fired. He got 12 years and will do four along with a lifetime felony record. Distance is often in the equation. I keep telling young officers and new shooters that life is not as cut & dry in the law as some appear to think. I also know some on Death Row at Angola State Prison that wishes they had not made some wrong assumptions in the law. My statement stands. The greater the distance, the lesser the threat. Just as LEO cannot shoot someone without being justified, a person cannot shoot when on the street because they feel threatened at 100 yards. The only case I have ever had anywhere near that was when a farmer shot a man that broken into his barn and took a couple items. The farmer thought the man to be armed and shot him with a 30-30 as the man headed out to the road and a waiting car. Farmer went to jail.

I see nothing wrong with your zero range. But as stated, change ammo and zero will change. The main thing is being able to hit what you shoot at when it is required. However, the longer the shot, the more closely the shooter will be examined. FWIW: There are a lot of LEO in jails over shootings they thought were righteous.

The above said, anyone is free to do as they think best based on the facts known at the time. But in the light of day with cooler heads and less stress, situations often look much different There are some investigators that lightly run over the case and let it go. I am more thorough and if there are any questions, I will work til the answers are there. So far in my criminal cases, I am 100% successful in court. In my civil cases, I am about 96% successful. I take the law and my work seriously. I would go against my daughter if she stepped outside the boundry of the law and it would hurt me but it is principles I was raised with. I do not turn my back due to kinship, friendship or LEO. Most good investigators are the same way. All we have to offer is our education, training and good reputation. If that gets tainted, we are no longer respected or within the law.

 

[Chili Vega]

If I understand you correctly you are saying that it is not possible for a 100 yard shot to be self-defense? I understand distance may play into the equation but I cannot see how a blanket statement about distance can be correct.

As far as using the sights, your statement would lead one to believe that if sights were used the shooting would not be justified because there is no immediate threat. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I have used my sights and will continue to do so.

Your bar fight "winner" did not see a gun and shot. This is a appears to be a bad shooting regardless of distance. The farmer shot someone for stealing property, another bad shooting regardless of distance.

I understand about the law not being cut and dried. I know what was acceptable today may put you in jail tomorrow depending on the political climate etc...I also understand gunfights are fluid situations and I do not know every possible scenario which brings me to my point of a 100 yard shot in self defense being possible.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the main thing is being able to hit what you shoot at when required.

 

[writerinmo]

OK, show of hands, how many of us have a chronograph and a ballistic computer program????

Not me, and I would be willing to bet that the majority don't either...

 

[oldman45]

If I understand you correctly you are saying that it is not possible for a 100 yard shot to be self-defense? I understand distance may play into the equation but I cannot see how a blanket statement about distance can be correct.

As far as using the sights, your statement would lead one to believe that if sights were used the shooting would not be justified because there is no immediate threat. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I have used my sights and will continue to do so.

Your bar fight "winner" did not see a gun and shot. This is a appears to be a bad shooting regardless of distance. The farmer shot someone for stealing property, another bad shooting regardless of distance.

I understand about the law not being cut and dried. I know what was acceptable today may put you in jail tomorrow depending on the political climate etc...I also understand gunfights are fluid situations and I do not know every possible scenario which brings me to my point of a 100 yard shot in self defense being possible.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the main thing is being able to hit what you shoot at when required.

If you would, tell me one example where a 100 yard shot would be self defense in an emergency situation. It just does not happen. If you are in LE, then you know that 20 feet is life threatening with a knife, a gun is a threat at most any distance but at 100 yards when armed with a handgun is not going to be a threat that would be immediate. It is the same with a fleeing subject. Life is not endanger with a subject in flight. Even give me a hypothetical scene where 100 yard shot is going to be a life & death situation.

You are taking my statements out of context. I did not say using your sights would be not be justified. It is obvious you have never been in a shooting. Sure there are times when a person may have time to get a correct sight picture and it is beneficial if you do. The problem is in most situations there is little time to do such. A local officer involved shooting in the area last year took place as an officer was getting out of his vehicle after a chase. He never had time to fully draw before he was shot. A backup officer arrived in time to see both the shooter and the officer on the ground but the shooter was still trying to use his gun. From 30 feet, the backup fired 12 times and hit the subject nine times. I got it on video from the car. There was no time to use sights but just use the point & shoot method. It was self defense and justified. The officer recovered but the shooter did not. Fortunately the distance was such that the bullets from the backup found their mark. But notice while most shootings are close range, those shooting usually cannot say how many shots they fired but they will say they properly aimed. Video tapes show they did not. Stress and fear took over. Yes we all would love to have time to aim but in the real world, it seldom happens. Granted there are times when, with proper cover and distance, aiming is possible but not often. Using sights does not mean fault, it means time was there.

Politics does not change the law. It may change employment and many departments are very political. I have seen more officers lose jobs due to violations in the last five years than I have in the 30 preceeding years total.

Are you familar with a throw down gun? Years ago, officers carried one or had someone bring them one to justify a shooting. It seldom happens today. New methods of reconstruction, video tapes, car cams and technology has stopped that. Even so, we still have officers shoot thinking one thing and learning another later. It is MY opinion that I would rather fire on instinct than get shot because I delayed waiting to make sure it would be a good shot. Did you see a site I posted months ago where three officers shot a man threatening to shoot them? They feared for their life due to the stance and the attitude. After fatally hitting the guy from three different vantage points, it was learned he was aiming a cell phone at them. Yes, there are cell phones and if the perp had one, they could have been shot. I felt it was justified as did many more here the way it went down but he was not armed and had he been 100 feet away, things would have gone down much differently.

 

[oldman45]

OK, show of hands, how many of us have a chronograph and a ballistic computer program????

Not me, and I would be willing to bet that the majority don't either...

I do not have one either and would not use one if I did. But I sure would enjoy owning a good timer. The expense does not justify one for me.

 

[Chili Vega]

Wow, where to start. I do not know of every shooting, law enforcement or otherwise so I do not know if there has ever been a 100 plus yard shot. But just because you or I do not have knowledge of them does not mean they do not exist. Hypothetical: You are in a open rural area hiking (or responding to a call if LEO) You take a round in the leg and cannot move. You see your attacker 100 yard away and he shoots at you again and misses this time. You can see he is shooting at you with what appears to be a handgun. If you shoot him would it be justified or do you say " He just got lucky with the first shot and probably won't hit me again."

As far as taking your statements out of context about using sights I was just following it to the logical conclusion. Tell me how it is misinterpeted. You wrote "If a person has time to aim properly using a correct sight picture, there is no immediate threat."

Politics may not change the law but it can influence how it is interpeted. Think about the second trial of the four LAPD officers who had been aquitted over the Rodney King incident.

I really don't see how the criminal actions of using a "Throw down" gun have anything to do with what we have been discussing. As to your opinion you would rather fire on "Instinct" instead of waiting to make sure it was a good shoot. It is just that, your opinion. If you are currently a LEO you have an obligation to the public you are supposed to protect to make sure any shooting is a good shoot. If you are an armed citizen you still must justify you actions. Saying the magic words "I was in fear for my life" by themselves won't cut it.

If in your examples you are trying to point out that gunfights happen up close and quickly, you have succeeded, most often they do. Nobody has argued against that. What has been written is there have been and will continue to be gunfights at extended ranges that can be justified.

Do not assume facts not in evidence.

 

[oldman45]

Chili,

Those involved with the Rodney King situation were railroaded by the press and public sentiment. We have it here as well.

CA is difficult enough with the problems almost unique to the state. OJ would be doing life had his trial been in any other state. I feel Rodney King earned his fate and his history afterward pretty much shows what kind of person he is. The officers that handled several incidents around the riots are now being used in training films. If I lived in CA, about the only place I would be in LE would be in the San Diego area and then I would consider another direction in life.

We had a LEO come here from CA and he had an entire new mindset after three months. The probs here are way different from out there and we deal with issues CA does not have. He was shocked at the difference in the communities.

 

[writerinmo]

If there are so many long distance gunfights, then lets see some documentation... I can probably pull two or three (a day sometimes) from the St Louis Dispatch that were short distance, either someone getting shot in a car or a home invasion. Just along the 'probability' factor alone it would be more logical to practice close encounter drills and then every so often shoot at longer ranges. This post has strayed way off the question that was asked, and into personal beliefs and conjecture.

 

[Chili Vega]

Chili,

Those involved with the Rodney King situation were railroaded by the press and public sentiment. We have it here as well.

CA is difficult enough with the problems almost unique to the state. OJ would be doing life had his trial been in any other state. I feel Rodney King earned his fate and his history afterward pretty much shows what kind of person he is. The officers that handled several incidents around the riots are now being used in training films. If I lived in CA, about the only place I would be in LE would be in the San Diego area and then I would consider another direction in life.



We had a LEO come here from CA and he had an entire new mindset after three months. The probs here are way different from out there and we deal with issues CA does not have. He was shocked at the difference in the communities.

I am in the next county Northeast of San Diego. A lot of agriculture, rural areas and very conservative. Actually it is a pretty good place to be a cop. We have quite a few San Diego laterals here.I look forward to agreeing or disagreeing with you in the future.

Chili