Range Report: Engaging a vehicle at 50yds with a pistol (pics/vids)

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • esrice

    Certified Regular Guy
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    24,095
    48
    Indy
    Spawned by a discussion in another recent thread, lovemywoods and I set out to put some theories to the test. If you haven't read that thread first, take a minute and get up to speed.

    https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...5-shooting_a_third_party_scenario_inside.html

    The main question that started this whole thing was one of legality, not tactics. But, as things often do here on INGO, the tactical and practical significance of such a scenario started to come up.

    We decided to explore several questions and put them to the test.

    Question #1: What does 80 yards look like? Is it reasonable to find a scenario in which your child would be 80 yards away from your position?

    Answer: Eighty yards is MUCH further than I had originally anticipated when I posed the scenario. I was trying to get across the idea of your child being far enough away that you couldn't run to them quickly, but close enough that taking a pistol shot was doable, even if it was difficult and risky.

    lovemywoods and I took out a long tape measure and measured out 80 yards in his side yard. It was immediately evident that 80 yards is pretty far away, thereby making the thought of having your child that far away a rarity. Oddly enough, even 50 yards looked fairly far in the yard, although it looked less far when we measured 50 yards down on the lake dam. Spatial relationships and perspectives can get funky. :n00b:

    Question #2: If 80 yards is too far away, what would be a more reasonable and realistic distance for such a scenario?

    Answer: Fifty yards looked more like the outside boundary of what would be reasonable and realistic. After seeing what 50 yards looked like in the side yard and deciding to use this as our benchmark, we decided to move down to the "zeroing range" on the dam, which was already measured out to 50 yards, to run our test. We re-measured with the tape just to be sure. As a reminder, 50 yards is 150 feet.

    Question #3: Assuming the legal requirements for such a shot were met, could a person engage a driver inside a vehicle from 50 yards with any amount of accuracy using a pistol, such that they wouldn't endanger any innocents?

    The Basic Setup

    Simulated vehicle and driver set 50 yards downrange
    Shooter (esrice) attempts to engage driver
    Pistol is S&W M&P9 w/Apex trigger and Trijicon HD sights
    Targets are then evaluated for accuracy
    Not timed, but shooter is amped up and moving dynamically to simulate as much realism as possible
    Scenario is started by shooter yelling "No!" to disrupt kidnappers' OODA loop

    To simulate a car-sized target, we used 2 large pieces of cardboard. You can see here that together they closely equal the size of a car or truck when viewed from the rear.

    s3keb7.jpg


    We propped the target against a standard target stand. To simulate a driver we stapled an IPSC silhouette to the left half of the cardboard. I'm posed here as a size reference.

    bfhumv.jpg


    Also standing 50 yards away, lovemywoods filmed the 3 attempts, with me using slightly different tactics for each attempt. Before the safety nazis start screaming that I am dangerously coming from behind the cameraman, rest assured that I was simply beside him, just out of frame. ;)

    Although his camera has a habit of compressing distance somewhat, here's an example of how far away I was starting.

    20it8br.jpg



    Round 1

    The first run I shot several rounds from a stationary position 50 yards away. I was shooting as fast as I could using mostly body position and indexing to aim. I obtained a single sight picture at the beginning and just started pulling the trigger quickly. I felt this was what my body naturally wanted to do after I had amped myself up before starting the scenario.

    [ame]http://youtu.be/PRGKpa1bcus[/ame]

    Here was the result on target.

    1620lkz.jpg


    Round 2

    The second round I again fired several rounds from the same position. This time, however, I decelerated my actions, focused on using my sights, and got a separate sight picture for each shot. You'll notice that my cadence was slower, but not what I would consider "slow" given the distance and the situation.

    [ame]http://youtu.be/BEcJm6GbObw[/ame]

    Here was the result on target.

    4rqo8y.jpg


    Round 3

    For the third round I decided to cover half the distance on foot first, and then engage from around 25 yards. Shots were again fired deliberately using the sights for each shot.

    [ame]http://youtu.be/cvoXRSFB4y8[/ame]

    Here was the result on target.

    1hvvb8.jpg


    Observations

    Round 1 was a complete disaster. All but one of my rounds hit something other than the vehicle or driver. They could've hit my child, a bystander, or damaged someone else's property.

    Round 2 felt VERY good and was a TOTAL surprise to me personally. Slowing down a gear paid dividends in getting effective hits on target-- both the driver and the vehicle. But you will notice that I still had 1 round unaccounted for, something that is easy to do at such a far distance.

    Round 3 was interesting. Although I was able to cut down the distance my shot had to cover, I was more fatigued when firing. This translated to all my hits finding their mark, but hitting lower on the driver.

    So back to the original question-- Assuming the legal requirements for such a shot were met, could a person engage a driver inside a vehicle from 50 yards with any amount of accuracy using a pistol, such that they wouldn't endanger any innocents?

    Answer: Yes it is possible, but its risky and requires a certain level of skill and confidence. Taking this kind of action should only be done as a last resort.

    Running this test was a real eye-opener for me. It helped me to better understand my own personal boundaries when it comes to taking longer distance shots with a pistol. While I now know that I can do it, I also now realize what it takes to make effective hits.

    I would encourage anyone else interested in his topic to try it out for yourself next time you're at the range. While I pray that none of us ever have to face such a scenario, knowing that you have the ability to potentially change the outcome of stressful events is a big part of the self-defense picture.

    I welcome any comments, questions, or criticisms! :ingo:
     
    Last edited:

    Hoosierdood

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 2, 2010
    5,360
    149
    North of you
    I saw a movie once where the good guy made a head shot at 100 yards on a fleeing vehicle. That's what I'm going with. Your videos just looked amateur.


    :D
     

    iChokePeople

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    51   0   1
    Feb 11, 2011
    4,556
    48
    I think the scenario setup, discussion and test are a cool idea, something we should do more. I'm going to try it here in my woods, but with a real pistol. Cough cough.
     

    OWGEM

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 9, 2010
    974
    18
    Columbus, IN
    Nice post. Questions come to mind. If the BG is IN a car his profile would be smaller, no? And what of deflection fireing through a windshield? Risky busniuss at best if others are in the car.
     

    jblomenberg16

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    67   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    9,920
    63
    Southern Indiana
    Great "real world" situation there. We all hope and pray we aren't in that scenario in the first place, but unfortunately the day may come that we will. I would say that the scenario in the test is probably more likely to unfold than a stationary target at 10 yards that isn't moving or shooting back, which is what most of us practice at regularly.

    I've taken some slow, aimed shot at a 12" Bobcat Steel at 75 yds with my Glock and 1911. Best I've been able to muster is about 50% hit rate, so add adrenaline and the stress of running into that and I'd say you're situation is very accurate to what a normal guy is capable of doing.


    Then again, the scneario you posed above is just that much more of a reason for me to OC an AR while walking with my family. ;) :ar15:
     

    esrice

    Certified Regular Guy
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    24,095
    48
    Indy
    Nice post. Questions come to mind. If the BG is IN a car his profile would be smaller, no? And what of deflection fireing through a windshield? Risky busniuss at best if others are in the car.

    This is why it would be helpful if you had read the other thread. ;)

    To answer your questions-- we shot as if the car was facing away from us, therefore the driver would be seated with his back to my position, and this would not affect his profile.

    Deflection caused by glass and auto body material was not a consideration for this particular test. We were only interested in accuracy.

    While it is risky business, this particular scenario was based on someone attempting to kidnap your child, but before the child enters the car. The thought was that putting ANY rounds on the car or driver would have an affect on the badguys' ability to flee with your child.
     

    jblomenberg16

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    67   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    9,920
    63
    Southern Indiana
    This is why it would be helpful if you had read the other thread. ;)

    To answer your questions-- we shot as if the car was facing away from us, therefore the driver would be seated with his back to my position, and this would not affect his profile.

    Deflection caused by glass and auto body material was not a consideration for this particular test. We were only interested in accuracy.

    While it is risky business, this particular scenario was based on someone attempting to kidnap your child, but before the child enters the car. The thought was that putting ANY rounds on the car or driver would have an affect on the badguys' ability to flee with your child.

    I think we are all waiting for part 2 now, which is you repeating the test, but shooting out the tires. Seems to always work on TV!
     

    VERT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Jan 4, 2009
    9,801
    113
    Seymour
    I did see the other thread and I have to say that this scenario is not at all unlikely. We live in a small subdivision and when I walk the dog I have the baby in a stroller or wagon while my 7 year old son rides his bike or scooter down the sidewalk. It is about 200 yards from my house to the end of the street. I can see him the entire time but it is possible that he could get 80 yards away.
     

    lovemachine

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    17   0   0
    Dec 14, 2009
    15,601
    119
    Indiana
    Wow Evan. That's some great shooting! I highly doubt I could get that accurate at that distance.

    And it really is surprising with the results. Big eye opener for sure.
     

    esrice

    Certified Regular Guy
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    24,095
    48
    Indy
    I did see the other thread and I have to say that this scenario is not at all unlikely.

    The situation that you describe is exactly what got me thinking about this whole thing in the first place. In fact once a car drove past my wife and I and slowed near my son who was up ahead about 10 yards on his bike. That split-second moment was enough for me get the tingles and start re-evaluating my game plan.

    Turns out they were just lost and had just slowed to check some directions.
     

    lovemachine

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    17   0   0
    Dec 14, 2009
    15,601
    119
    Indiana
    You might be surprised. I was! Best way is to just get out and try it.


    I'm definitely going to MCFG this weekend and trying that.

    Now, if this was a real situation, granted you wouldn't be thinking as carefully as you were in this report, would you run half the distance again, or try to take careful shots first?

    It seems like rounds 2&3 were very similar....
     

    VERT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Jan 4, 2009
    9,801
    113
    Seymour
    Then again, the scneario you posed above is just that much more of a reason for me to OC an AR while walking with my family. ;) :ar15:

    Running this with an AR would've been a joke, but I like where your head is. ;)

    :laugh:

    Still thinking about this one. So my son has the ability to get 100 yards or farther away from me, plus I have the toddler. The way I see it I can't just leave the baby to run after my son. Hmmm.........

    Wife thinks I am nuts for always sliding the snub in my pocket as I go out the door. After reading this slinging the AR does not seem all that crazy. Yeah I want to be that guy. :D
     

    lovemachine

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    17   0   0
    Dec 14, 2009
    15,601
    119
    Indiana
    Still thinking about this one. So my son has the ability to get 100 yards or farther away from me, plus I have the toddler. The way I see it I can't just leave the baby to run after my son. Hmmm.........

    Wife thinks I am nuts for always sliding the snub in my pocket as I go out the door. After reading this slinging the AR does not seem all that crazy. Yeah I want to be that guy. :D


    Why not just make a mount to "mount" your AR to your stroller?
     

    esrice

    Certified Regular Guy
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    24,095
    48
    Indy
    Now, if this was a real situation, granted you wouldn't be thinking as carefully as you were in this report, would you run half the distance again, or try to take careful shots first?

    Good on you for catching that. :yesway:

    I personally feel the two tactics have their pros and cons, and that you would use whichever one fit the situation best.

    Putting rounds on the car FIRST means that you have increased odds of a miss, and are using valuable time that could be used getting you closer to your child. However those rounds, if they find their mark, could be just what is needed to motivate the driver and/or grabber to stop what they are doing and flee. Even if the driver leaves the grabber behind, at least you can now deal with them one-on-one. If you incapacitate the driver, their means of escape is now gone and you have a chance at keeping your child there.

    Closing some distance first means that you don't have to shoot from so far away, and you are more likely to be accurate. However, that could be a moot point if the grabber was able to toss your kid inside the vehicle while you were taking the time to run. Now your child is inside the car and you won't be able to engage it at all.

    Tough calls all around.
     
    Top Bottom