What is the effective SD range for the average shooter with a 31/2 inch barrel and a 43/4 inch barrel using standard 9mm ammo?

quote:

Originally posted by lmacrichter:
What is the effective SD range for the average shooter with a 31/2 inch barrel and a 43/4 inch barrel using standard 9mm ammo?

My practice and training is at 22 - 25 yards. Doesn't matter the barrel length. I have hit a gallon jug at approximately 100 yards with a 3.5 inch S&W 3913, but it took me three shots to hit it once.

I don't practice for short shots which are probably considered more an "had" scenario.

AT a Sportsmen Club with a Membership of 1200 senior members the pistol range only had 25 and 50 yard lines. Seldom did one see individuals use the 50Yd line. So I inquired of the range committee person why not install a 7 yard line. After several discussions concerning the negative and positive aspects a 7 yard line was put in place. What was noted there was a dramatic increase in the numbers of individual utilizing the pistol range facilities.

If by chance you had the misfortune of being involved in a shooting incident at what distance would the occurrence most likely be at?

quote:

Originally posted by lowflash:

If by chance you had the misfortune of being involved in a shooting incident at what distance would the occurrence most likely be at?

If I knew that answer, I just wouldn't show up to the location. I'd take a vacation day. Or I'd show up with a rifle. Because I don't have the answer, I train varying distances and complexity.

I have never understood the obsession and fascination with training for average in life saving skills. Especially when the average is only average until it's not. I often hear people wax poetic about how it is impossible to claim self defense past seven yards. Then the same people scream that the answer to active shooter scenarios is a "good guy with a gun". If the shooter is going down the mall towards where your child is standing, do you want the "good guy with a gun" that trained for average, or the one who trained to be proficient at 25 yards or out? That is your answer. If you are good with some bubba with a LCP that hammers at 5 yards making that shot have at it.

There is trained and untrained. Choose wisely.

The sad truth to this is most people can't shoot well at the seven, let alone the 25 or 50. So, they find excuses to explain away why.

Out to 25 meters I can hit the bullseye just as much with my glock 43 as I can hit with my p226. So I have never noticed any difference with any of my pistols.

My attitude is if I can constantly hit a 6 inch by 6 inch square at 25 meters then I should have no issues hitting anything closer. It is a lot harder training at 7 meters and then hoping I can hit at 25 meters.

Effective range isn't a limitation by an inch of barrel it's a shooter limitation. Where do you train? If you don't train for any more than 7 yards, or 22 yards, or whatever the artificial limitation is that you place on yourself, then that may be your effective range.

Chances are the range isn't something you get to choose. If you did, you wouldn't be shooting in the first place. Chances are that someone else is choosing your range for you, and you'll either be ready to fight at that range or you won't. If you won't, there's a high probability that someone will get hurt, and there's a high probability that it won't be your opponent. Effective range becomes a function of how prepared you are in that moment.

The same is true of whether you train with just your strong or weak hand...and then at what range. And from what angle, etc.

I don't know about the next guy, but I can absolutely guarantee there are a lot of others faster, more accurate, and far, far better than me at almost any range. Probably train a lot more than me, too. Accordingly, it behooves me to train as best I can. I'm lucky to hit the broad side of a barn, and I shoot just slightly faster than melting snow, if I can see what I'm shooting at. My effective range? No idea. I do know that what I'm shooting has an effective range substantially farther than I do, in the right hands.

My best bet: don't be there. Shoot first. Train as best I can, when I can and hope it's my day to be more aware, a bit faster, or a bit more accurate than the other guy, and be armed. Highly unlikely I'll choose the conflict, but when someone else chooses, regardless of the range, I will bring the fight to them as hard and fast and direct as I can.

I don't know my effective range. When I find out, it's probably too late.

Is this a question about you the shooter or about the gun/ammo effectiveness.
In any case as noted above the difference in shooter is not relevant. The difference in ammo isn't relevant either. You can use your ballistic calculator but I like http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
to just check since real world ammo is there. Won't make any difference to the ammo.

If you're asking at what range does the round become "ineffective" 1) what is the definition of "effective" 2) that range is probably beyond a normal shooters capability and 3) I would guess a negligible difference in that distance between pistols with 3/4" difference.

What is the actual question you're trying to ask?

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
Is this a question about you the shooter or about the gun/ammo effectiveness.
In any case as noted above the difference in shooter is not relevant. The difference in ammo isn't relevant either. You can use your ballistic calculator but I like http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
to just check since real world ammo is there. Won't make any difference to the ammo.

Effectiveness is always about the shooter. It depends on shot placement. That's always about the shooter.

An inch in barrel length isn't going to make any significant difference at most handgun ranges that the typical person might engage: certainly not out to ranges that the typical person might be capable of hitting. The effective range isn't the pistol, it's the person.

The limiting factor isn't the gun.

Just a note since we are discussing effective range, 25 yards is basically sniping for SD. I'm not saying don't practice but contact to 15 is most likely. As already stated placement is key with any pistol at any range.

quote:

Originally posted by lmacrichter:
What is the effective SD range for the average shooter with a 31/2 inch barrel and a 43/4 inch barrel using standard 9mm ammo?

Your effective range is as far as you can effectively engage your target.

I practice at 25 yards because I believe that if I can shoot well at 25 yards, it will be easier to shoot well at shorter distances.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
I'm lucky to hit the broad side of a barn, and I shoot just slightly faster than melting snow, if I can see what I'm shooting at. My effective range? No idea.

Early morning, first coffee ... I could swear you were making fun of me! Very accurate description of my "skills" ...

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I have never understood the obsession and fascination with training for average in life saving skills. Especially when the average is only average until it's not. I often hear people wax poetic about how it is impossible to claim self defense past seven yards. Then the same people scream that the answer to active shooter scenarios is a "good guy with a gun". If the shooter is going down the mall towards where your child is standing, do you want the "good guy with a gun" that trained for average, or the one who trained to be proficient at 25 yards or out? That is your answer. If you are good with some bubba with a LCP that hammers at 5 yards making that shot have at it.

There is trained and untrained. Choose wisely.

The sad truth to this is most people can't shoot well at the seven, let alone the 25 or 50. So, they find excuses to explain away why.

I am a land share owner for a shooting facility that has a membership of 800 and some odd members. I observe individuals of different skill levels. Of particular note I watch the shooters that employ pistols modified thus dedicated for various types of competition. Thus occasionally I ask do you conceal carry and if so what handguns do you employ. The small to micro semiautomatic pistols in 380Auto and 9X19mm are popular along with proverbial snub nose 38Spl revolver. I do not think these individuals see themselves as in engaging active shooters at 50Yds AKA 150Ft. Among those individuals is a sprinkling of law enforcement individuals. I am not being demeaning of those individuals but rather making a statement of what I've observed.

quote:

Originally posted by Mainer:
I practice at 25 yards because I believe that if I can shoot well at 25 yards, it will be easier to shoot well at shorter distances.

I especially like to use 25 yards when trying to determine the accuracy of a handgun or particular load. I never understood folks posting pictures shot at 10 yards then bragging about how accurate the gun was.

Some thoughts on the "average" thing...

Of course the comments along the lines of "if you train solely to the average, the average is the only thing at which you'll be effective" are true. Problem is: Many of us have constraints, such as financial ones. So, yes: I train to be at least marginally proficient at ±7 yards. I occasionally shoot out to fifty and 75 feet, and plan to do more of that. Also strong and weak single-hand.

When I get the opportunity, which is very rare, I'll practice things like draw and shoot from the waist while raising the gun and backing, incl. multiple targets.

Maybe I'll finally even get over to give USPSA a try at a local club. I've got everything I need--I just never got around to it while I was still working full time. (That will consume an entire month's [or better] of ammo allocation in one go, btw.)

There are a lot of things I'd like to do to improve my proficiency. LGS/range has a CCW league with a virtualization system, but the ammo costs alone make it prohibitive for me

Agree there won't be much difference from a 2 inch to even six inch barrel in effective range of the gun. How well a shooter can maximize the potential of a pistol is an entirely different matter. And of course the ballistic performance of the cartridge is less out of the shorter barrel.
I routinely shoot at 25 yards and often when possible much further.
I can pretty consistently hit a uspsa size steel gong at 100 yards with my j frame. Is there enough juice left at that range to incapacitate someone? I hope to never find out!
A couple months ago I was shooting my 22 Colt challenger and hitting gongs 12x12 at 80 yards probably 5 out of 7 shots. Not too much juice left in a standard velocity 22 starting out of a 4.5" barrel. It know of no one that would want to get hit under these circumstances.

The real difference is mostly related to how well the shooter can aim with a shorter barrel.

Velocity won't be different enough to matter, as the bullet will be plenty speedy from either barrel out to any practical fighting distance.

But, sight radius may limit effective range. Really short barrels have really short sight radii, and that makes them harder to shoot accurately.

I have a 3" Smith, though, and I can easily hit man sized targets at 25 or 30 yards in double action. I don't think I'll ever find myself in a gunfight at over that range, or even out to that range. Five yards, or even five feet is more like it.

quote:

Originally posted by jaybirdaccountant:

quote:

Originally posted by Mainer:
I practice at 25 yards because I believe that if I can shoot well at 25 yards, it will be easier to shoot well at shorter distances.

I especially like to use 25 yards when trying to determine the accuracy of a handgun or particular load. I never understood folks posting pictures shot at 10 yards then bragging about how accurate the gun was.

Apples/Oranges. Shooting static targets well at 25yds on a range does not necessarily mean you will be able to quickly and accurately engage a mugger trying to stab/shoot/hit you at arms length (or even 3-5yds).

Yes, you will possess the hand/eye coordination to make a shot at 3-5yds, but getting the opportunity to make that shot requires training and techniques not required to hit targets at 25 on a range.

So, practicing at longer ranges is great, but if you want to survive a gunfight, better also be training in things that help you survive gunfights beyond raw static marksmanship.

I look at statistics as a way to prioritize training, not to eliminate a category. So, I prioritize close quarter shooting and striking at 0-5yds since the overwhelming majority of attacks take place here. I also train at longer ranges because that (long odds) active shooter scenario is likely to require some long shots.

Some thoughts on "Effective Range"

I have participated in a few forum discussions where "effective range" is brought up. I have yet to see anyone define what they mean by "effective." Without that, any further talk is meaningless IMO.

The military puts a max effective range distance against point (single) and area (group) targets on all its weapon systems. To do this, they define what effects they want and what percent hit rate is acceptable, taking weapon, ammo, and shooter into consideration.

I don't know what hit rates the Army is using, but they are pretty low. Anyway, their voodoo says the max effective range of an M4 against a point target is 500m.

So, for an individual to determine their max effective range with anything:

1: Define the effects. A hit anywhere? A hit to a certain smaller vital area? Terminal effects desired? Hit probability?

2: Apply the above to the weapon/ammo. Let's say we want an expanding HP in an 8" circle. Well at what range (in a rest) will the handgun/ammo combo hold 8"? Will the HP expand at that velocity?

3: Apply our answer above to our expected hit probability in extreme stress conditions at various ranges in consideration of the hit percentage we deemed acceptable in step 1.

If the gun can hold 8" at 100m, the ammo expands to 125m, we have 100m theoretical range. If we think a 50% hit rate into 8" circle is acceptable, but our expected hit percentage into that circle with a handgun under combat stress is 10% at 100m, then no way is 100m the answer.

The reality is that it really will come back to the shooter as the limiting factor. The mechanical accuracy of the gun/ammo system should exceed one's ability to hit under stress (in all but extreme examples, like a derringer). The rub is how to even get a decent idea of your personal ability to hit under stress at any given range?

Considering the studies showing LE hit percentages, anywhere on the body, at 13%-30%-ish, when all LE officers have to qualify on the range with way higher hit percentages on smaller targets at longer ranges...there is clearly a disconnect.

Stressful, highly realistic training including FoF really helps you perform better under stress, but it is not controlled enough to evaluate hit rates to any statistically significant degree. What we need is some sort of stress drill where we can correlate performance with real-world shootings. Except, then the odds of the person we ran the "stress-drill" on, also getting in a real shooting (nevermind many) to confirm isn't gonna happen.