Referencing the Mumbai situation in practical self defense terms how useful is a pistol going to be against wandering groups of terrorists spraying bullets at you from 50-100 feet away? it seems most people were cowering behind whatever cover they could find (including apparently a number of police) and trying not to bring attention to themselves.
The scenario reminds me of the heavily armed North Hollywood bank robbers some years ago who seemed to fire at will a giant a massive police response until snipers were brought in to take them down.
A pistol is a point defense weapon, meaning it’s good to about 25 feet or so. You have to get in close to your target in order to be effective–meaning you A) have to sneak up if you’re on the offensive, or B) let your assailant close in on you if you’re on the defensive.
The thing about pistols (and sidearms in general) is that you trade off accuracy for concealability/portability. The barrel on a handgun generally does not have the length of a rifle to impart stabilizing spin.
So, from a distance, not a whole lot of good, unless your enemy got in on top of you.
Tripler
Think of sidearms as your gun to use to fight your way to your longarms.
Hmm, I usually shoot pistols at 75 feet (25 yards) and they’re very deadly at that range. It’s not a distance where you’d care about a bulls eye, but it’s hard to miss a target at that distance. That said, a rifle still wins. If I had only a pistol in that situation, I’d only fire if they didn’t see me and I could take aim and have a sure shot at taking a bad guy out, or hide and only use it if they got too close for comfort.
What do you shoot? I can’t hit the side of a barn with a .32 Beretta with a 3" barrel. Somewhat better with a .22 revolver that had a 6" barrel, but as I’ve said before, you could give the guy all eight .22 LR and he’d kill you with a bar stool while he bled to death.
I fully agree with you! Different kinds of shooting though; I ought to have caveat-ed, as longhair75 already mentioned. Sure! You can reach out to 25 yards, but can you do so in a firefight where lead is coming at you, and adrenaline and panic is affecting your aim?
I would submit for discussion that in the OP’s scenario, hiding and selective engagement with an overall strategy to “high tail it outta there!” would kind of limit the effective range of aimed shooting to that of feet, and not yards.
As astro’s link points out, the LAPD were woefully without firepower at first, when comparing sidearm 9mm and .38 [sub]who carries a .38 duty pistol anymore?![/sub] to rifles. One needs to augment the lack of firepower with maneuver and stealth.
Tripler
Shoot to supress, then move. Move again. Then move again. And keep moving.
Remember the bad guys in the Hollywood shootout had body armor. The cops shot them, it just didn’t work. Without the body armor, pistols would have won that firefight.
I probably couldn’t either, that’s a tiny gun. I can’t shoot very well past 15 yards with a Kel-Tec .380, which is similar in size. A 1911 or Glock .40 are the pistols I shoot.
Don’t forget that the terrorists shooting up all those places in India were apparently carrying duffel bags filled with grenades. So if you didn’t shoot all the terrorists in your area in a few seconds, you’d quickly find yourself blowed up real good.
I’ll add my two cents to the growing stack on the table and conclude with “not very, if at all.”
Try holding a laser pointer and getting a good draw at something at around 50 metres. Clench and unclench your hand and simulate being in a rush of adrenaline and terror. Oh, and you’ve got to keep moving every few seconds to avoid being shot, yourself.
You’re not going to hit a Volkswagen under those circumstances, much less the small half of a man who’s behind cover, barring luck. And if he’s got body armour and a helmet, even a .45 is going to be of limited use.
You can shoot grenades with a rifle or pistol.* Trust me, I know.
*Note: This depends on the casing of the grenade (i.e. frag or blast), and the explosive of the main charge used. By and large, most grenades use an insensitive enough of a filler, so that the bouncing around of a grenade on a battlefield doesn’t initiate it, and kill the user.
Can you shoot the grenade as its arcing through the air at you? What happens if you hit the terrorist just as he pulls the pin out of the grenade, as he falls, the grenade (sans pin and spoon) winds up next to the bag of his other grenades?
The terrorists seemed to be rather indiscriminate in who they shot, and they certainly couldn’t have expected to pull off their mission and survive. Presumably, a well-trained civilian with a pistol is going to have limited amounts of ammunition, and is going to want to only hit terrorists, so he’s going to have to be a lot more particular in who and how he shoots.
Generally speaking, your average handgun+shooter is not very effective at stopping threats. A handgun is an underpowered tool, and in most situations it is very inaccurate by virtue of its design and ergonomics.
Because a handgun basically sucks as a tool for dealing with bad guys, you would never take one to a fight - you would choose a long arm, instead.
Long arms are offensive weapons - handguns are defensive weapons. When you carry a handgun you are not looking for a fight. You carry a handgun for the rare situation when you *unexpectedly *find yourself in the middle of a fight.
If you’re facing someone with a rifle, then you’ve not got much chance. Moderately good work can be done with a revolver at 50yds, under stress-free circumstances. Against a rifle at 100yds or more, you’ve got little chance of a good hit. “Better than none”, no doubt some one will say, but it involves attracting attention to YOU as distinct from all the others who were just trying to hide.
