Distance Equals Cover & Time

While the title may seem confusing, there is a lot of truth in it as it relates to defensive encounters. The interrelatedness between the concepts of distance, cover, and time cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, most of us have lives and commitments that often puts developing our lethal prowess on the backburner. Gaining the understanding and fundamentals to fully appreciate this relationship is difficult. Regardless, this doesn’t make it any less important.

Most defensive pistol training is centered around very close work. 10 yards and in seems to be the norm for handguns. Some curriculums push shooters out to 25 yards if they’re lucky. This applies to rifles as well, with most never shooting past 100 yards because of facility constraints, doctrine, or a combination of both. This preoccupation with CQB distances, in my opinion, leaves a serious gap in capability.

Sure, most defensive encounters occur up close. However, this doesn’t make them ideal. The problem with being close to your assailant is that any disparity in skill starts to level out. The fundamentals you focus on improving like sight alignment and trigger control mean absolutely nothing at contact distances. At that point, it can boil down to a 50/50 chance on who wins the encounter and sometimes even if you win you still might lose from lethal injuries.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t train for up-close work. On the contrary, ECQC techniques are very important, and I highly encourage everyone to learn them. What I am saying is that adding distance shooting to your toolbox will only help you. Learn to consistently shoot your handgun at 100 yards. Don’t dedicate all of your training to it but know how to do it.

I understand what I just said and I’m unapologetic for it. I’m fully prepared for the plethora of references to the Tueller drill and numerous videos from Active Self Protection. Lest we forget all the would-be defense attorneys offering legal advice, saying you better have a good lawyer if you shoot someone from 100 yards. Now that we have it all out of the way, l would like to talk about my journey to embracing distance shooting with pistols and why it’s important.

It started when I was a training junkie a few years back, bouncing from class to class. Compared to many, I thought I was well-trained. Sure, a competition shooter might be faster and more accurate, but I had tactical knowledge that would tip the scales in my favor, right? Wrong. I genuinely thought this until I took a CSAT class with Paul Howe. It was Advanced Individual Tactics, and I got my ass kicked.

Without giving away too much, I will say the accuracy standards were above anything else I had ever seen. They were so high that, up until recently, I thought the class was bullshit. I thought the standards were either A. Arbitrarily chosen and inapplicable to most defensive shooting or B. They were intentionally so hard you would keep coming back to “learn”. The harsh reality was my ego hated the fact that I didn’t perform well.

We spent a decent amount of time shooting B8 targets one-handed at 25 and 50 yards. One of the exercises had us shooting under low-light, one-handed across a 75-yard parking lot. The target was a skinny drug addict turned slightly sideways to further reduce the size of the silhouette. My performance was abysmal, and I came completely unprepared for it. When I left, my view of the class was the skills taught were nice to have but completely unnecessary. “Afterall, fights are up close statistically, and I’ll most likely use both hands.” Like many, I wasn’t good at it, so I rationalized why I wasn’t, and stopped focusing on it.

Many gunowners tend to do this. They’ll talk about how skills like this are inapplicable to most, so they’re going to focus on real-world scenarios. Then, they’ll turn around and mag dump into pounds of Tannerite without hesitation and talk about the ‘boog’. Real-world stuff only though, right? I’m not pointing fingers at anyone. There is nothing wrong with having fun, but it’s human nature to avoid things you suck at. It isn’t fun being shitty at something, so we usually bypass whatever that is. It’s why I don’t play golf. For defensive shooting, this luxury doesn’t exist. It’s a discipline where addressing your shortcomings is a necessary evil to better prepare you because the stakes are well… everything.

Since we’ve addressed the clichés and ego, herein lies the question. How does being able to shoot further actually help me in defensive encounters where they’re typically up close and personal? The answer is twofold.

First, while shooting a handgun at 50 or 100 yards isn’t a likely scenario, it does confirm that your fundamentals are good. It’s an immediate confirmation that you’re putting everything together at a higher level than most. If you can consistently shoot at these distances, then you can accurately engage in just about any situation. It also makes shooting up close even easier.

As a side note, to those who carry pocket pistols where these distances aren’t a real possibility, you’re selling yourselves short. Trust me, I get it. However, there is nothing comfortable about carrying handguns and there is nothing easy about hitting targets with a pistol at rifle distances. However, just because something is inconvenient or hard doesn’t mean it isn’t important. Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility where confidence and capability need to be at the highest levels you can personally attain to prevent yourself from becoming a liability to those around you. Plus, it’s the only gun you’ll bring to a fight because it’s on you. Since I can’t carry a rifle around, I want the most pistol I can reasonably carry based on my frame. You’re already sacrificing lethality by carrying a pistol instead of a rifle and you’re already inconvenienced by carrying in general. Why carry something that renders you even less capable?

Second, cover and time is created by distance. It’s a fact that most people are not proficient with their firearms. Because of this, the more space you can create between you and an assailant, the more likely you’ll be able to confidently deliver lethal precision while receiving inaccurate fire from them. If you can shoot far, you can quite literally call the shots. Distance reduces the likelihood of you getting hit and gives you more time to think and take your shots. Being able to take a tactical pause to compose yourself and make more effective decisions while providing accurate fire is never a bad thing.

If given the opportunity to create distance, take it. If you can run away, do it. In doing so, you’ve just given yourself an advantage because you can confidently engage over greater distances than they can.

This idea really didn’t hit home until I ran the scenario in my head. Imagine yourself as the person who is incapable of shooting at distance. You’re trying to engage someone, but they’re giving you accurate fire outside of your effective range. To take care of them, you need to close the gap. If you can bound closer from pieces of cover, then this might be achievable. What if you’re in an empty parking lot, supermarket, or mall? These are all real-world wide-open spaces with little cover. Also consider that if this person is effectively engaging you at distance, then the closer you get to them means the shots will be even easier for them, which isn’t a great outlook for you since they’ve already proven they’re the better shot. You can choose to run toward accurate fire (not very smart) or the only other logical option— retreat if possible. These problems are further compounded if the person has a rifle.

As the gears are now turning, you might be thinking of many situations where having this capability makes a lot of sense. An active shooter at Walmart is a simple example, but there are many others. Years ago, I was in a large parking lot where a gang shootout occurred, and I was caught with my pants down. No cover, no gun, and even if I had one to defend myself with if necessary, there was no way I was going to make the 60-80 yard shots at that time. I’ve also managed warehouse locations in big cities where the yards were quite large (10+ acres) and experienced lots of trespassing by people who would shank you for $20 to get their fix. Being able to defend from a distance would certainly be a better option than getting stabbed by a crackhead and or contracting a disease. Remember, even if you’re the victor, you still don’t win if you get AIDS or hepatitis.

In hindsight, I now understand CSAT’s standards as I’ve progressed as a shooter. Distance shooting creates a massive tactical advantage and one-handed shooting is necessary for low-light situations since one hand must hold the light, although I think I have a more pragmatic approach to that here. However, it’s also a diagnostic tool for shooter deficiencies and in rare circumstances, it’s nice to know you can shoot one-handed. In other words, I can understand how the standards were applicable given the scenarios and the nature of the class.

Some of the more seasoned readers might still have a couple of qualms with this point of view. They recognize that most will not gain the proficiency to accurately engage at longer distances with a handgun. This is true, but it still doesn’t change the fact that having this skill is a force multiplier. As mentioned earlier, just because something is hard to learn doesn’t mean it’s useless. On the contrary, it means the likelihood of others being able to do it is low, giving you a leg up. Performing to a basic standard is great, but it’s far from ideal. Anything that increases your chances in defensive encounters can’t hurt.

An argument for liability could be made about pushing average shooters beyond their proficiency with long distance shots, seeing as we’re accountable for every round fired. Then again, an argument could made about how carrying a gun increases liability in general. There is no way around this. The best things to do are to understand one’s limits, train hard, and be smart by avoiding confrontation when possible.

Another concern is that pistol calibers will lose a lot of steam and drop significantly when shooting across a football field. This is understandable, but the reality is different than what you might imagine. Because pistol bullets are on the heavier side, they tend to retain velocity better than you would think. For example, a 9mm round will lose 10-12% (some more, some less) of its velocity at 100 yards, but that’s still within the expansion window for some hollow point designs (Lucky Gunner has a great write up about this). Will it be less effective than at point blank range? Definitely. Will it suddenly be equivalent to a .22 LR at that range? Absolutely not. Will it result in a one-stop shot? No, but accurate hits on target still dramatically affect performance and are better than none.

Regarding the drop, it’s not that bad. The worst performing 9mm rounds drop about a foot at 100 yards according to this nifty chart. While that isn’t small, practically speaking it’s easy to address. Aim at the shoulders and you’ll get good hits every time if you do your part. For the nonbelievers, I can validate this with my experience using cheap Tula ammo here.

I hope you found this information useful, or at the very least, enjoyed a different point of view. As with anything I write, this is simply my opinion. Feel free to agree with it or discard it. Sometimes even the authors on this blog cannot reach an agreement with each other. Having different opinions is great for challenging the status quo, expanding horizons, and possibly learning in the process. My goal is simply to inform shooters the best way I know how.