Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns I don't care about 50 yd accuracy!

Any time someone has to resort to name calling they are admitting they have run out of ammunition in the battle of wits.

It bears repeating: when the feces hits the fan you will do what you were trained to do. If you weren't trained to deal with dynamic, fluid, ever-changing situations where you have to make split second decisions, you'll just stand there and get shot. If you didn't train to deal with a such a deadly force encounter you will do what you trained to do - nothing.

I am a civilian and I was talking to my concealed carry instructor and he just laughed when I told him about this forum.
He said there is no way you could convince a judge that you were defending yourself from a threat at 50 yds away.
So all the talk about flat shooting, accurate handguns is not an issue...

Gmoats, no way does the 50 yard adversary have to fire first, all he has to do is demonstrate intent to fire and one is justified in defending ones self

Gmoats, no way does the 50 yard adversary have to fire first, all he has to do is demonstrate intent to fire and one is justified in defending ones self

You're in a "duty to retreat" state and your ex-wife comes rolling up to your place and gets out of her car with a handgun yelling that she's going to kill you. You're standing beside your masonary construction house and can just step inside and close the solid hardwood door, slam the dead bolt and call the cops. Instead you take a rest and kill her dead relying on your uber bear shooting skills. Hopefully you've got some bear-grease left over from your last kill for Tyrese to use on your ass. You might be wishing Tyrese didn't have such a big meplat.

Interesting that you know Tyrese's preference

Just guesswork. As you're so fond of saying, knowledge trumps it so I'll defer to you on the subject.

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate……...



I'm no candidate for mensa, but, slow witted as I may be, it seems that this whole discussion doesn't have anything to do with police officers responding to "shots fired" calls or squad leaders on a recon patrol in the desert. Neither does it have to do with whether you should be able to shoot in the dark, hit moving targets or practice at distance. A cursory glance at the text would seem to indicate that the instructor was talking to a CIVILIAN taking a CONCEALED CARRY CLASS about convincing a judge/jury that he was DEFENDING HIMSELF when he shot someone 50 yards away.

At 50 yards there is no disparity of force argument---the size, age, number, gender, etc. of the perp is irrelevant, as are threatening verbiage and movements. In fact for a concealed carrying civilian (not a responding officer or soldier on patrol)--a person at 50 yards only becomes a justifiably "shootable" threat if they are an active shooter that initiates the altercation (i.e. they shoot first). Taking into consideration the typical skill level of the typical civilian in the typical concealed carry class, when you add the pucker factor of taking incoming fire, they are for all practical purposes unarmed and represent a greater threat to innocent bystanders than they do the perp if they return fire. If you subscribe to Clint Smith's dictum that "every round you shoot has a lawyer attached to it," it's easy to see why an instructor would tell a class that shooting someone at that distance would be difficult to justify.

Should we be able to hit a target at 50 yards? Absolutely. Should we practice on moving targets in low light while we're moving? Absolutely. Is that the point being made by in the original post. I don't think so.

JMO--of course, I could be wrong.

A lot of these 'active shooter' situations in public places like shopping areas, malls, theaters, restaurants, schools, workplace, etc, etc, have 'terrain' that could easily put you in a defensive situation at a distances well beyond 7 yards.