Rifle vs Pistol close range speed and accuracy experiment.

[Alaskapopo]

Ok today I went out and took up Marvin, a poster on Glocktalk, on a challenge. I believed that even at close range rifles were faster than pistols to engage targets with especially for people of low to medium skill. His idea was to shoot 4 targets at 7 yards and have them spaced approximately 2 yards about (6 feet). I placed the targets at 7 yards. I only had 3 target stands with me so I did not do 4 targets. I also spaced the targets 3 yards apart.

Here are the results
First run I used my Noveske N4. I started in low ready and used the Aimpoint T1. I shot the drill 5 times and then went up to look at the hits. I did screw up and only had 29 rounds in my gun so I ran out of ammo before I could fire the last shot on the last string.


GUN Noveske N4 carbine





TIME

1. 2.69
2. 3.07
3. 2.58
4. 2.58
5. 2.29 (one shot not fired so I am not averaging it in for the time)

Average time for first 4 strings 2.73 seconds.

HITS

Target 1 8 Alpha 2 Charlie
Target 2 9 Alpha 1 Charlie
Target 3 4 Alpha 5 Charlie (one shot was not fired)

GUN STI Edge in 40sw. My limited gun for USPSA. Caliber 40sw.



TIME
1. 2.88
2. 3.01
3. 3.10
4. 3.10
5. 2.70

Average time for all 5 strings is 2.95

HITS

T1 6 A 3C 1B
T2 7 A 2C 1D
T3 9A 1C

TOTAL

22 A’s
07 B&C’s
01 D hit

Gun Larue Stealth Rifle



TIME

1. 2.52
2. 2.59
3. 2.50
4. 2.56
5. 2.69

Average Time 2.57

HITS

T1 9A 1C
T2 10A
T3 8A 2C

TOTAL
27 A’s
03 C’s

CONCLUSION.

The rifle is not only more accurate even at 7 yards in my hands its also faster. I am uploading the video as I post this but it is taking forever so I will probably have it up tomorrow.

[SCL]

Interesting test, but your comparison is apples to oranges IMHO because you were shooting optics on the rifles and open sights on the pistol. Try running it again with rifle BUIS and compare the results. As long as you are using the right optics for the range you are shooting (i.e. not using a 15X day optic offhand to shoot a target at 10M) they will be faster than using iron sights.

Optics are quicker because the eye doesn't have to focus/process on three inputs (rear sight, front sight, target for proper sight alignment/sight picture) when using irons. With an optic you only use two. If using an optic where parallax doesn't matter - i.s. an aimpoint or holosight you are even faster since proper eye relief between eye and sight and no longer needed.

Another good experiment is to test the difference between using a diopter iron sight (like an HK G3 or SIG 550-series) and compare it to M4 and AK iron sight configurations.

Just my .02 YMMV;
SCL

[Alaskapopo]

You are right the pistol was iron sighted. The point of this was to shot that for home defense even at close range the rifle not only has the edge in power but also in speed and accuracy. Most people don't have an optic on their pistols.

I have also found that at 15 yards or less Iron sights are actually a hair faster than red dots. At least for me and my shooting partner. I did this experiment 2 summers again.
3 IDPA targets at 15 yards. I fired 2 rounds to the body and came back and fired 1 round to the head on each target. I used my Colt 6920 set up with Irons, then an Eotech, Then an Accupoint. Irons on a rifle don't really force you to look at three focal planes at least not at close range. You just focus on the front post. The rear sight does not need to be focused on as its next to your eye and your brain will automatically center the post in the rear sight. Its sub conscious.

Here are the results from my older experiment. I used IDPA scoring back then.

17 yard Close quarters drill 2 to the chest on three IDPA targets then 1 round to each head.

Pat Eotech Raw time Points down x.5 seconds Total score (IDPA) System

8.66 .5 9.16
9.30 0 9.30
9.37 0 9.37

Averate Raw time of 3 best times 8.85
Average penalty. .6 second
Average score of 3 best times. 9.27

Pat Accupoint Raw time Points down x .5 Total IDPA score

8.97 2 10.97
10.04 0 10.04
9.29 0 9.29
Average Raw time 9.12
Average penalty. 1.4.
Average score. 10.1


Pat Iron Sights Raw time Points down x.5 second IDPA Score
9.26 0 9.26
9.13 0 9.13
8.55 0 8.55

Average Raw time 8.98
Average penalty. 0
Average total score 8.98


Pat with Leupold CQC Points down x .5 IDPA Score

9.52 2 11.52
10.23 0 10.23

Average Raw time 9.87
Average penalty 1
Average score 10.87




Pat AR10 Accupoint Points down x .5 IDPA score

9.59 0 9.59
8.56 0 8.56
8.63 .5 9.13

Averate Raw time 8.83
Average penalty. .4
Average score of 3 best times. 9.09

Pat AK Points down x.5 IDPA Score
10.58 0 10.58
10.76 0 10.76
9.64 .5 10.14
Average Raw time 10.33
Average penalty .17
Average score 10.49

Summary.


Average score
1. 8.89 Irons
2. 9.06 Eotech
3. 9.09 AR10 Accupoint (Not sure why I beat my .223 time with a .308 other than the AR10 at the time had a much better trigger)
4. 10.1 Accupoint (Colt 6920)
5. 10.23 CQC (Best score not average)
6. 10.49 AK 47

[Alaskapopo]

All videos now up.

Failuretostop.

Your right on your points. This exercise was to demonstrate to a fellow poster that a rifle is faster in close not just far away. My theory is for low to medium skilled shooters they will always be faster with a long gun. I could be wrong but that was my theory based on what I have seen training other officers to shoot. Plus it was fun to do this.
Pat

[rob_s]

I disagree that pistol irons:carbine optic isn't apples: oranges and I don't think that saying "carbines usually have optics" is a good enough explanation to remove the disparity. Lot's of IPSC shooters run optics on their pistols in order to gain speed so it's not unheard of to have an optic on a pistol at all. and lots of carbine shooters will buy a rail, stock, pistol grip, vertical foregrip, fancy BUIS, a sling, and a light before they ever buy optics so it's not unheard of for someone to use iron sights on a "home defense" carbine.

Still, I agree that there is a potential for the carbine to be faster at close range. It is also a fact that good close-range carbine shooters have ways of using the iron sights that are not as slow as lining the post up perfectly in the circle which will result in acceptable hits on an IPSC or IDPA target.

I also agree that "low to medium skilled shooters" CAN be faster with a long gun if they can get past the manual of arms, which can be a big hurdle for some people for whatever reason.

Doing tests like this in the laboratory of the range is fun. but it's even more fun and yields even better results when you can perform the test across a broad array of shooters. I suggest you propose a stage for your next 3-gun match where the exact same stage is shot with pistol and then with carbine, and not back-to-back. Make it a mildly complex stage involving movement, non-threats, barricades, etc. See what kind of results you get over a sampling of 20, 30, or 70 shooters. I have done this many times with various theories (transition vs. reload, tac load vs. reload with retention, etc.) at both our matches and our drills. It always yields interesting results, and the anomalies are just as interesting as the average.

[Alaskapopo]

I disagree that pistol irons:carbine optic isn't apples: oranges and I don't think that saying "carbines usually have optics" is a good enough explanation to remove the disparity. Lot's of IPSC shooters run optics on their pistols in order to gain speed so it's not unheard of to have an optic on a pistol at all. and lots of carbine shooters will buy a rail, stock, pistol grip, vertical foregrip, fancy BUIS, a sling, and a light before they ever buy optics so it's not unheard of for someone to use iron sights on a "home defense" carbine.

Still, I agree that there is a potential for the carbine to be faster at close range. It is also a fact that good close-range carbine shooters have ways of using the iron sights that are not as slow as lining the post up perfectly in the circle which will result in acceptable hits on an IPSC or IDPA target.

I also agree that "low to medium skilled shooters" CAN be faster with a long gun if they can get past the manual of arms, which can be a big hurdle for some people for whatever reason.

Doing tests like this in the laboratory of the range is fun. but it's even more fun and yields even better results when you can perform the test across a broad array of shooters. I suggest you propose a stage for your next 3-gun match where the exact same stage is shot with pistol and then with carbine, and not back-to-back. Make it a mildly complex stage involving movement, non-threats, barricades, etc. See what kind of results you get over a sampling of 20, 30, or 70 shooters. I have done this many times with various theories (transition vs. reload, tac load vs. reload with retention, etc.) at both our matches and our drills. It always yields interesting results, and the anomalies are just as interesting as the average.

At my three gun matches we usually shoot the larger pistol stage again with a rifle. In the future I will keep the scores and post them here. That is a good idea thanks
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Interesting test, but your comparison is apples to oranges IMHO because you were shooting optics on the rifles and open sights on the pistol. Try running it again with rifle BUIS and compare the results. As long as you are using the right optics for the range you are shooting (i.e. not using a 15X day optic offhand to shoot a target at 10M) they will be faster than using iron sights.

Optics are quicker because the eye doesn't have to focus/process on three inputs (rear sight, front sight, target for proper sight alignment/sight picture) when using irons. With an optic you only use two. If using an optic where parallax doesn't matter - i.s. an aimpoint or holosight you are even faster since proper eye relief between eye and sight and no longer needed.

Another good experiment is to test the difference between using a diopter iron sight (like an HK G3 or SIG 550-series) and compare it to M4 and AK iron sight configurations.

Just my .02 YMMV;
SCL

I may do the irons tomorrow.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

Rob I actually found the results from the last 3 gun match I held in September. It rained that day and I only had about 1/3 the people that normally show up. I usually get from 15 to 25 people to my shoots. This one I only had 7 and one did not finish.

Anyway Stage 1 with the pistol was the same as stage 1 with the rifle. I used IDPA scoring for this match. This stage was a CQB stage designed by a friend of mine. You started off with 2 targets at 20 yards then after that you ran into a mock shoot house with a variety of targets from 2 yards to 10. The course of fire was 38 rounds if my memory is correct. I had to reload once with the pistol. (STI EDGE)

Here are the results.

Scott Pistol 30.57 Rifle 33.25

(Scott is a B class shooter in USPSA and Master in IDPA in SSP)

(his pistol was a Glock 34 (23 round mags) and his rifle was a RRA 16 inch carbine with a Meopta 1-4 scope. He had a 48 round mag loaded so no reload was needed)


Pat (me) Pistol 34.30 Rifle 34.22 ( I am a B shooter in USPSA and Expert in IDPA)

I was using my STI edge in 40sw with 20 round mags and my rifle was my Noveske N4 with a Swarovski Z6i scope on it at the time and a 48 round mag.


Allen Pistol 59.16 (lots of fails to neutralize) Rifle 34.71

Allen is a C shooter in USPSA and an Expert in IDPA.

Allan was using a Para Ordnance P18 9mm. His rifle was a 20 inch (unknown brand) with a Meopta 1-4 power scope and he was using a Trip Research 52 round mag.


James Pistol 41.66 Rifle 36.38

James is one of my patrol officers and my roommate. He is not yet rated in USPSA or IDPA.

James was shooting his STI Tactical in 45 acp (his duty gun) He shoot his MSAR carbine with an Elcan 1 and 4x optic for the rifle events with a 42 round mag.

Manny Pistol 48.58 Rifle 39.66

Manny is a A shooter in Open but he was shooting his limited 10 gun that day.

His pistol was a single stack 1911 in 45 acp with 10 round Wilson Mags. His rifle was a 20 inch A2 AR15 Iron Sights.

John. Pistol 59.11 Rifle 63.52

Not sure what John’s rating is. He is an older shooter (60 I believe)

His pistol was a Single Stack 1911 with 8 round mags. His rifle was a 20 inch gun with a 3x9 scope on it. This hurt him on this close range stage.

We had another shooter but he did not shoot rifle and had to go home early. I maybe able to post some videos of this match as I think James had his girlfriend video him.

Conclusion. Only 2 of the shooters did better with their handgun on this course. One of those shooters had an optic that was poorly suited to the stage (John with his 3x9)

The other 4 shooters all did better with their rifles. Some did a lot better.

[rob_s]

Were they able to shoot the carbine without a reload but were forced to reload once or twice with the pistol?

Interesting results, but you'll need to design a stage that is neutral to really get an idea of the difference. I would suggest starting with a down-loaded carbine magazine and perhaps even using only down-loaded magazines for all reloads.

A stage with maybe 5 targets, 2 non-threats, and all magazines loaded to 7 rounds. And I'd keep all targets at 10 yards or less as 20 yard shots are pushing it for many pistol shooters and they'll either miss or take agonizing amounts of time to try to make the hits. Incorporate movement, and shooting on the move. I would try to balance covering as many skills as possible while also remaining neutral and balanced between the handgun and the carbine.

[Alaskapopo]

Myself, Scott and Allen did not have to reload because we were using large mags. (no mandatory reload) Everyone else had 30 round mags. Your right that does skew the results. But there was enough room to reload on the move in several places.
Pat