Carbine vs Pistol training

[PeteG]

It's human nature... The only thing holding back more "boy's with toy's" from "playing" is the cost associated with taking the courses.

Now on the other hand, I think if the pistol classes were much more convenient to schedule for the average working Joe, and a lot easier on the pocketbook, interest/attendance would skyrocket.

The money people spend on the third, fourth and fifth cheap rifle, not to mention and all the walter-mitty gear, would pay for a lot of courses.

As for scheduling, a week-end with a Monday or a Friday attached is about as convenient as it gets. Taking five days plus two travel days to go to Gunsite is inconvenient ... but more than worth it.

Every person sets thier own priorities. What I am sure of is if the courses were free and took up no time, lots of people would still not attend.

[PeteG]

What kills me about the carbine articles is the guys running around in mulitcam with chest rigs. The vast majority of the time I deployed an M4 it had a 20 rnd mag in it for going prone on the hood of my car, and on the way out of the car I put took a 30 rnd mag out of my drivers side map compartment and put in in my reaction side rear pocket.

There are some occupations where the practitioners of the trade do fight in multicam with chest rigs.

As to the other 99.9%, I'm not sure what they are training for. Indeed, truth be known, I dont' regard those courses as training at all. I get more of a "theatre club" vibe from it.

But a flaming about bull-s**t marketing and useless forms of "training" is rather off-topic. For present purposes, I presume we are referring to courses which address the basics of gun handling, marksmanship and mind set, for which any more than basic safety equipment (ear protection; eye protection; billed cap and knee pads) is superflous.

[PeteG]

I dont think I actually know anybody, personally, who trains hard with a rifle and doesnt hasnt already done pistol training. Maybe those guys are out there, looking for a weekend playing rambo, but they sure arent friends of mine.

You do now. I started with rifle, at age 11. Most farm kids did, at least in the 1960's. My first formal instruction was in carbine. I took pistol courses later, once I nailed down the more useful skills.

I don't recall playing Rambo. I'm too tall.

[Lycanthrope]

however, i personally do think starting with pistols can be good because they are harder to shoot well. if you can master sight pic, trigger press, follow-through, and all that good stuff on a pistol, transferring it to shooting a carbine is not that hard. on the other hand, learning that stuff on a carbine and then transferring it to pistol is more difficult.
.

When you are shooting 50 yards, that is true. When you were brought up shooting deer at 500 yards, pistol shooting at 20 yards is a piece of cake. I know a LOT of rural shooters who are brutally deadly beyond 300 yards. I watched my father stroke a deer on the run at 150 yards last Saturday and thought to myself......"Gee....I always took that for granted that everyone can do that". I realized they can't.

It really depends on the frame of reference. We need to step out of our biases of who we are here.......the defensive mindset is a minority and whether that is right or wrong is another discussion altogether...... I think about these things......but I'm a Type-a personality that doesn't trust anything I haven't seen for myself. It may work well for 99% of people, but it is entirely useless if it doesn't work for me.

Take one instance......in PA, where we have a typical...(and perhaps the majority representative.)..... PA gun owner who has some proficiency with a hunting long arm (and perhaps zero experience with sidearms).....and who has an AR for home defense.......taking a carbine course makes sense. He's already playing to his strengths. He may have no desire to carry a sidearm for self defense.

I'm not here to argue the moral repsonsibility or benefit of training. The truth is......most people should take a defensive driving course before a firearms course (because more people die at the wheel due to accidents or negligence).......and a dietary course before that......if they are really interested in extending their own longevity. It's hard to argue that many people would be better served by an extra 30 min on the treadmill versus dry fire as well as just learning to avoid bad situations compared to spending money on a carbine course.......or even a pistol course.

I think most of the population of shooters....let alone people....just aren't coming from a frame of reference of being a defensive shooter. There are a LOT of firearms owners who do not own these tools for self defense. Sounds weird to some of us....but really, it's true. If they want to spend money on a carbine course to have fun and play "Rambo".....well, it's their outcome that matters.

I sit on academic boards for colleges.......the college wants to prepare people for the workforce because they are measured by job placement. Some people, however, just take course to learn without any wish to apply that knowledge in the workforce. It's an internal reward in itself.

Knowledge....like a gun.....is simply a tool that can only be measured by the individual application and expectation. Tools, in general, are only measured by how well they meet the users expectation of meeting a need...and expectations vary. What the professor is teaching may not be what the student is paying for. If the instructor gives them an informed decision, then their job is done.

I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong. I'm saying I think why this is the way it is....and why people like to take rifle/carbine course.

For me....it's primarily cost/benefit holding me back.

Lycanhumanbehaviorismyareaofexpertisethrope

[LittleRedToyota]

When you are shooting 50 yards, that is true.

yeah, that's pretty much what i was thinking of...maybe out to 100. but a lot inside 25. just the context of a carbine, as opposed to longer range rifle, class.

i completely understand about guns not really being defensive tools for many people. i grew up in a small hunting town up in northcentral PA. knew a lot of guys who were very good long range rifle shooters who never even fired a handgun. i saw some of them fire handguns for the first time...which is what lead me to the conclusion that rifle skills do not always automatically transfer to pistol.

but, yeah, for a guy like that who wants an AR for home defense, clearly skipping the pistol training would make sense. although, in my personal experience, a lot of those guys didn't have much more use for ARs than they did for handguns. maybe what they really need is a home defense with a shotgun course.

also, in my experience, many of these guys weren't really the type to take shooting classes at all.

but, yeah, i was definitely coming from the frame of reference of the defensive minded (including outside the home) shooter.

anyway...good post.

[LittleRedToyota]

does not negate the value of a rifle at home (where we spend at least half our time) on the farm (where some of us spend 90% of our time) or in a work place where firearms are permitted (e.g., in our own businesses).

very true (and i do keep an AR near for home defense). but when considering the amount of time spent at various places, one must also consider the probability of needing to defend oneself at those places.

i don't know the stats, but i would be surprised to find that you are not more likely to be attacked outside of your home than in it even given that you spend most of your life in your home.

so, if one is forced to choose between training with a tool that is applicable to both outside the home and inside it and training with a tool that is better for inside the home but practically not applicable to outside at all (as, i believe is the case for many people when it comes to carbines), i think it is reasonable to pick the former.

of course, if one can do both, all the better.

The argument one will "not likely" have thier carbine with them so they should train only with thier hand guns also overlooks the fact "most people" don't have thier hand guns with them when they are out and about, either

well, those people need to so something to correct that problem.

good post, though. very good points.

[PeteG]

Hi Stan.

i don't know the stats, but i would be surprised to find that you are not more likely to be attacked outside of your home than in it even given that you spend most of your life in your home.

Statistically, you are much more likely to be injured using a ladder at home than in a fight anywhere. Or driving to the airport. Or by eating saturated fat. My point being that statistaical arguments about what is "likely" miss the point.

The fact is, when it comes to threats which warrant the defensive use of deadly force, those of us in police or military occupations can only sometimes predict what is likely to happen, and the rest of us can never predict what is "likely" to happen. None of this is "likely" for any of us who are not in professions where fights regularly occur. "It will always happen when you do not expect it." (Emphasis added.)

But even if one focuses upon relative probabilities as between weapons systems (which is to say, we deliberately miss the big picture), then we do know, from historic data, that armed confrontations occur in low-light conditions on about a 7-to-3 ratio. That usually means at night. Where are you most of the night? Which system accommodates the use of a light best? Which system allows you to have the light on the weapon, as opposed to having to carry two objects around? Blah blah blah ...

Argument rarely brings truth.

so, if one is forced to choose between training with a tool that is applicable to both outside the home and inside it and training with a tool that is better for inside the home but practically not applicable to outside at all (as, i believe is the case for many people when it comes to carbines), i think it is reasonable to pick the former.

One could re-cast the issue: if one is to choose between a weapon that has a slight statistical advantage in terms of being available, but probably will not work, and one that will cover you most of the time, and probably will work, I think it is reasonable to pick the latter.

The answer, of course, is to have the carbine around when you can, and carry the gun when that is your only practical choice. If you agree that is a reasonable approach, then you necessarily have to train with both.

I trust it is clear that I do not believe training with a carbine is "better" or "more important" than training with a hand gun. My point is this is a false dichotomy.

What I do believe is:

- Training with both is very desireable in terms of one being able to use the right tool for the job, or at least the best tool available under the circumstances;

- Training with both is not significantly more difficult (in terms of time and money) than just training with one, at least for people who are regualarly employed and of normal physical ability;

- Most people will never train with either, chosing instead to go through thier lives psychologically compensating for their lack of skill and ability by purchasing hard goods;

- Some people train with one weapon, choosing to go through thier lives psychologcially compensating for thier lack of skill and ability with one system by pushing for incremental improvement in inconsequential aspects of the system they chose first (which also goes for the style they choose first);

- Training with either system enhances one's ability with both (assuming one is training using a coherent method, as opposed to whizz-bang for this and fandango for that); and

- Not training with either leaves one with a very serious gap in thier understanding of defensive arms.

By way of contrast: One might have to choose between one martial art and another, beause martial arts are so time-consuming. (Even so, I know very few people who don't do some training outside thier primary art.) But choosing between formal instruction in pistol and formal instruction in carbine is like choosing between learning to drive a car and learning to drive a truck ... once you do one it's not a big deal to do both, and silly to take a position about which is better.

By the way, one can, if they are trained to do so, substitute a properly configured bolt-action rifle for carbine in a lot of situations. While there are problems with kacking off .308 or .30-30 rounds inside houses, they make a lot of sense out in the field on a tractor or moving cross-country. Think "rifle" more than "auto-loading carbine." But maybe that's another thread.

[LittleRedToyota]

Statistically, you are much more likely to be injured using a ladder at home than in a fight anywhere. Or driving to the airport. Or by eating saturated fat. My point being that statistaical arguments about what is "likely" miss the point.

i dunno if they miss the point...i learned to use a ladder safely, drive defensively, and eat right (of course, learning that and actually doing it aren't always the same thing ) before i learned to fight.

and, i think that makes sense...there is a higher probability of my being adversely affected by not having those skills, so it makes sense that learning them is higher on the priority list.

and the rest of us can never predict what is "likely" to happen. None of this is "likely" for any of us who are not in professions where fights regularly occur. "It will always happen when you do not expect it." (Emphasis added.)

all true.

but we are still faced with limited time and budget and must prioritize.

i don't see how you can have a rational prioritization process with without attempting to attach probabilities to the potential threats. if one does not consider the probabilities, someone who lives in kansas and never leaves might decide to prioritize training to survive a tsunami over surviving a tornado...and, obviously, that would not make any sense.

But even if one focuses upon relative probabilities as between weapons systems (which is to say, we deliberately miss the big picture), then we do know, from historic data, that armed confrontations occur in low-light conditions on about a 7-to-3 ratio. That usually means at night. Where are you most of the night?

that statistic is meaningless from a carbine v. pistol debate, though if (as i suspect), most armed confrontations happen at night outside the home.

as far as missing the big picture, i would argue that tactics and decision making are far more important than the tools. to me, that is the big picture...and that is what most training should focus on. but, you have to pick tools to use during that training. to me, one should pick tools that are likely to actually be available during a confrontation...which, if i am right about most confrontations happening outside of the home...would be a handgun (assuming one actually carries a handgun) over a carbine.

if one is to choose between a weapon that has a slight statistical advantage in terms of being available

now we get into some fun stuff. i don't think the statistical advantage is slight. i think there are many, many more street robberies of random people than random home invasions.

on the other hand, though, you could argue that it is more likely you will need to/want to deploy a firearm during a home invasion than during a street robbery.

but probably will not work,

that is another interesting one. while i understand and agree with what you are saying about rifle rounds vs. handgun rounds actually physically stopping someone, i would not agree that a handgun "probably will not work". it seems that in the majority of defensive gun uses, the situation is resolved without any shots even being fired. and how often do people actually not psychologically quit/run away after being shot with a handgun? (of course, you cannot count on that response, but you also cannot discount it in deciding whether or not a handgun is likely to "work".)

The answer, of course, is to have the carbine around when you can, and carry the gun when that is your only practical choice. If you agree that is a reasonable approach, then you necessarily have to train with both.

i do agree that is the answer. and i do agree with the desirability of training with both.

but, if one is forced to prioritize (time and money are, after all, not unlimited), then, well, one is forced to prioritize.

I trust it is clear that I do not believe training with a carbine is "better" or "more important" than training with a hand gun. My point is this is a false dichotomy.

in theory i agree. however, in practical reality, sometimes we do have to prioritize.

- Training with both is not significantly more difficult (in terms of time and money) than just training with one, at least for people who are regualarly employed and of normal physical ability;

hmmm...i dunno. in theory, you need to double the rounds expended, double the time expended, double the classes taken, etc. well, maybe not actually double as there is crossover. but, you do have to increase the money and time spent. many people (including me) could do that by making sacrificed in other areas of life, but not everyone.

- Most people will never train with either, chosing instead to go through thier lives psychologically compensating for their lack of skill and ability by purchasing hard goods;

i agree...i am definitely not advocating buying another gun instead of taking a course or going to the range and practicing.

- Some people train with one weapon, choosing to go through thier lives psychologcially compensating for thier lack of skill and ability with one system by pushing for incremental improvement in inconsequential aspects of the system they chose first (which also goes for the style they choose first);

and some people train a little bit with multiple systems and never achieve an adequate level of proficiency with any of them because they are spreading themselves too thin.

at some point, i agree with you regarding incremental improvement and inconsequential aspects, but that isn't always the case.

for example, this summer, i waffled between taking tactics I and II or your carbine course. i simply could not afford to do both.

i decided:

- software is more important than hardware; and

- i am more likely to have a handgun with me if SHTF (as i do actually carry one all the time and i do believe the S is more likely to HTF outside of my home than in it)

so, the tactics classes using a handgun were the higher priority (as were some H2H and disarm/retention stuff). there was certainly nothing incremental or inconsequential about tactics I and II for me.

now, at this point, a carbine class probably is at the top of my priority list, so i will likely be taking that this summer. that may actually end up being somewhat incremental (though i don't know what i don't know, of course) as i have already learned a good bit from you and from others about running carbines and do practice with mine a bit (though not as much as i should and not as much as i practice with my glock).

but, i still think it made sense to put off the carbine class so that i could take tactics I & II.

- Not training with either leaves one with a very serious gap in thier understanding of defensive arms.

agreed. but still, we live in an imperfect world where we are often faced with less than optimal choices and have to prioritize.

But choosing between formal instruction in pistol and formal instruction in carbine is like choosing between learning to drive a car and learning to drive a truck ... once you do one it's not a big deal to do both, and silly to take a position about which is better.

it would also, though, be silly to take a class in driving the truck rather than a class in driving the car if one is actually going to be driving the car and one only has the time and money to take one class.

[mercop]

More good conversation. Whether it is with the pistol or rifle, working in and around your home takes time to become efficient. Add use of light to that and it takes more time.

Focusing on awareness, avoidance, open hand combatives, and pistol work will take care of most problems. It is up to the individual to decide what training they need. The first two things should be passed onto all loved ones along with the basics of the third.- George

[PeteG]

so, the tactics classes using a handgun were the higher priority (as were some H2H and disarm/retention stuff). there was certainly nothing incremental or inconsequential about tactics I and II for me.

Now you have changed the subject. Now you are not talking about training in pistol vs. carbine; now you are talking about training in pistol vs. carbine vs. problem solving.

I regard the ability to intuitively solve problems as they occur as much more important than any firearms discipline. Training in any of the firearms disciplines (or with contact weapons, or bare-handed) should have as a primary objective making the use of the weapon (or technique) "unconscious," precisely so one can use available mental capacity to recognize and solve the problem. The mental aspect of firearms training should, if it is done right (as I estimate "right"), very quickly ascend
in importance over weapon handling or marksmanship.

One will find entry into that process regardless whether they focus on hand gun training, carbine training or both. Advantage: neither.

In the end, each man must find is own salvation. And it won't come as a formula.