Self-Defense at 300 Yards

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leif

New member
Rather than bog down somebody else's thread (see http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=340723), I'll repeat my question here:

Aside from the Texas tower sniper in the 1960s, are there documented examples from recent US history in which somebody actually has taken aimed fire from a distance of 300 or so yards and was unable to leave the area, but actually compelled to return aimed fire in order to defend themselves? I'm not talking about military or law enforcement actions here, but purely domestic, civilian on civilian, fully documented incidents. If you are going to respond with Waco, Ruby Ridge, or undocumented rumors from Katrina, don't bother.

I don't think that it happens with the frequency that some people here fear. Please prove me wrong.
 
L

Leif

New member
Yes, I remember that incident, but my understanding was that the ranges involved were quite a bit shorter (I could be wrong). Thanks.
 
O

overkill556x45

New member
From what I have read in the gun rags, and from stories from LEO friends, most of the time SD gun fights occur at knife-fight ranges. Situations like the sniper in Texas in the 60s are few and really far between. In fact, I can't think of another long distance situation like that. Even when nutcases go on rampages, it's usually across-the-room distances.
 
K

Kreyzhorse

New member
Of course there was the DC Snipers (although I'm not sure what range they worked from), but to my knowledge no one returned fire.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
are there documented examples from recent US history...
Click to expand...

No there aren't. That's why I say preparing for such an incident is like preparing to be kidnapped by aliens. We should spend our time on more important things.

Even the example from the clock tower shooting only shows what people DID do, not what a smart person SHOULD do.

A rifle is a mighty fine defensive tool. However, purely for defensive purposes, there are almost always better choices.

For ease of carry and concealment, handguns.
For power, home defense, and generally "I mean business", shotguns.

Since I see not justification for defensive shooting beyond a few dozen yards at most, I see no need for the selection of a "Long Range Defense Rifle". A shotgun would be a better, more versatile, option.
 
V

vito

New member
The most common reasons I have heard for having a self defense rifle are: terrorist attacks; massive civil disorder (such as after hurricane Katrina, but worse); or active rebellion against a government that has become tyrannical. While none of these scenarios seems likely to me, all are within the realm of possibility. A Mumbai type attack in an American city does not seem that unlikely, and defending one's home with a rifle is likely to be more effective in convincing the terrorists to move on to easier targets than such defense with a handgun, at obviously closer range.
 
F

FlyboyTx

New member
Tyler Courthouse Shooting

I was not *there* but missed the entire incident by about 30 minutes. I had business there, decided not to stay for lunch and left. I would have eaten at a cafe on the square just across from where this went down.

After I realized just how close I came, that's when I upgraded the "72-hour kit" to include a rifle capable of decisively influencing a fight at a somewhat greater distance (M1A1).

One man died that day because he brought a handgun to a rifle fight. Seeing what happened to the first man, another man who was there and also carrying his pistol was at too great a distance and wisely chose not to engage the threat, who was armed with a Norinco AK clone.

Perp was firing from in the open and distances to adequate cover in that fight were at least 50+ yards. He was wearing body armor. Courthouse LEO's that engaged initially had mostly revolvers (.38s) and were ineffective in stopping him. He went moble, cops then chased him, block his vehicle, closed to within 25 yards and used A-4/.223 aimed fire to stop him with head shots.

No, it will probably never happen to me, but after that, I just decided to be prepared. So I have the long gun available and practice with it regularly.

FBT
 
D

Double Naught Spy

New member
I don't think that it happens with the frequency that some people here fear. Please prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it, but nobody in the other thread suggested such situations happen at 300 yards with any frequency.

Then again, 300 yards was the maximum stated distance of the original thread where the poster wanted a rifle that would be good for self defense out to that far, not for that far and beyond.

While there may not be many 300 yard defensive examples, there are certainly several examples where rifles have been a much better choice at distances greater than normal pistol distances. Would a shotgun have worked in those cases as peet suggests? Sure, in many a shotgun would have been a fine choice, with the correct ammo.
 
B

Buzzcook

New member
I don't think you could call the University of Texas Tower sniper a case of self defense, as much as one of vigilantism in a non-derogatory sense of that word.

I think we have to go back to the range wars, to find examples of long range exchanges of gun fire between civilians. Even then the lines between civilian and law enforcement blur the one distinction. Long distance in those situations would have been closer than we consider it to be as well.
Nate Champion gives us the besieged cabin scenario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Champion During the Johnson County war

There are examples from American Indian wars, but I would consider them military actions rather than civilian self defense.
The turn of the century labor wars included many gun battles. I can't think of a long distance one with the possible exception of Homestead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
I don't recall anybody saying you don't need a rifle

What the question seems to be is do you need to shoot someone @ 300 yds. Those shot owners in Koreatown LA made a show of being armed, so they wouldn't have to shoot rioter/looters. I'm sure some shots were fired, but no reports of people being deliberately shot at long range have come to light, as far as I know.

Having a rifle capable of making the longer range shots certainly seems like a good idea to me, but, actually shooting people at that range would have to involve some really, really unlikely situations, at least in the USA.

The most likely situation (and it is far from plausible) is the LA riot scenario, and again, shooting at someone from long range, for deterrence, seems to be a tactic open to a lot of debate.

Here's a question, (and remember, completely hypothetical), if you can see the mob (or individual) at 300yds, and they are armed, and shooting at random (in other words, not appearing to be deliberately shooting at you, but maybe in your general direction), what action need you take? What actions should you take (and remember, eventually law & order will return)?

When the police aren't there (and won't be for who knows how long), are you your own police? Your neighbors? Sure, we are all responsible for our own protection, but do, and should, you take it beyond that? if there is no one else to?
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
Here's a question, (and remember, completely hypothetical), if you can see the mob (or individual) at 300yds, and they are armed, and shooting at random (in other words, not appearing to be deliberately shooting at you, but maybe in your general direction), what action need you take? What actions should you take (and remember, eventually law & order will return)?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be there. That's kind of the whole idea behind my argument. Katrina? You should have left. There WERE evacuation orders. LA riots? Get in the car and LEAVE. There is little to no excuse for being in these situations to begin with. If I lived in an area where riots and mobs were likely, I move. My safety is more important than whatever other reason may want to keep me there.

Let's say by some happenstance I am in a scenario as you describe. I have to wonder, how many members of this mob are armed? I mean, if they look like a military unit coming my way then what is one guy with ANY rifle going to accomplish? If it's only a few of them armed then what am I going to do? Start picking them off at 300 yards? What would be the justification? Even if I do, I stand by my assertion that ANY center fire rifle, including my 204, is plenty sufficient to dissuade an aggressor at that range. If I have to wait for them to get closer, or to actually engage me or my house, then I have options better than a rifle. 12ga comes to mind.
In any case, I'm going to be seriously bunkered down and not even aware of a threat at that distance. They're going to have to be trying to break into my shelter area before I even know they're there and in that case the 12ga is, once again, my weapon of choice.

I say again, though. There is no way I'd be in that area anyway. These things don't develop in 10 minutes and in those EXCEEDINGLY rare places that they do, frankly... Why the hell would you live there?
 
D

Double Naught Spy

New member
I wouldn't be there. That's kind of the whole idea behind my argument. Katrina? You should have left. There WERE evacuation orders. LA riots? Get in the car and LEAVE. There is little to no excuse for being in these situations to begin with. If I lived in an area where riots and mobs were likely, I move. My safety is more important than whatever other reason may want to keep me there.
Click to expand...

LOL, like so many of the gun owners here are likely to take the orders of government.

Little or no excuse to be in those situations? Many folks would argue with that. Your sentiment that your safety is more important is a sentiment I agree with, but not one shared by everyone. In the case of the LA Riots, many of those folks were protecting their entire livelihoods and for them, their livelihood was like life itself. Insurance doesn't cover riots and the police were not there and so many folks provided their own protection and did it just fine.

The option to leave is just that, an option.

I say again, though. There is no way I'd be in that area anyway. These things don't develop in 10 minutes and in those EXCEEDINGLY rare places that they do, frankly... Why the hell would you live there?
Click to expand...

Gee, why do folks live in forests? Why do folks live in fault zones. Why do folks live along the ocean coasts. Why do folks live where they could freeze to death? Why do they live where they sun could kill them in just a few hours? Why do folks live in parts of cities that are less than 100% safe?
 
S

Sportdog

Moderator
Todays Society

I think that the driving force behind threads concerning home defense scenerios is the media and their gloom and doom predictions of a possible collapse of the financial systems in the United States and the resulting chaos that could possibly occur. I'm not blessed with a tremendous knowledge of high finance but the picture that is being painted of the ecomomic situation is not pretty and causes all of us to ponder the ramifications of a total meltdown. I make no predictions on what the future may bring but if someone wants to cover some bases for a state of anarchy, who am I to judge? At least they are not asking me to fund it!
 
R

Ricky

New member
Long ramge defense

I seriously doubt that our economic system will beak down to the point that I have to defend my home with my guns.
But I have recently stocked up on all types of ammo, just in case, I can always shoot targets or use it for hunting later.;)

Ricky
 
B

Buzzcook

New member
amd6547: your LA example is lacking context. Were the men on that roof top in eminent danger? Where they protesting themselves, or their property? Where they planing on engaging in long distance gun fire or were they planning to hold fire until they or their property was directly threatened?
Plus you should notice there were police present at that site.

We certainly can argue about the most appropriate way those Korean business my should defend their property. But you have to prove that their situation meets the criteria of the thread.
 
Last edited:
J

Jim March

New member
The highest round count of any fight involving civilians on US soil at least post-WW2 (probably post-WW1 for that matter) would be the Battle Of Athens, TN, 1946. At least 1,500 rounds were fired, mostly by returning GIs, at the county jail where the traditional ballot-stuffing session was underway. Much of the fire is described as coming from the hills surrounding the jail, and by way of rifles captured from the local armory, so that would likely be Garands at some pretty extended ranges.

They eventually blew the jailhouse doors open with dynamite and took the surrender of the crooked cops, sheriff and others, and then led the media straight in to prove there was ballot fraud afoot. (Earlier in the day at least one of the sheriff's criminals had shot a voter connected to the GIs.)

No prosecutions were ever made (zero fatalities probably helped some), and by 1948 the "GI Reform Party" swept TN politics. One of the new state legislators to rise to power with that group was Albert Gore Sr, daddy of Clinton's VP. Gore Sr. later led a merger of the GI Reform Party with a revamped TN Democratic party.

Anyways. While still a civilian shooting, it wasn't "immediate personal defense" and had a lot of the hallmarks of a military ("militia" in the old-school sense) action.
 
A

amd6547

New member
I am not arguing that the need for long range self defense by rifle is likely or imminent, merely that the possibility is constitutionally and morally valid. Having the skills, equipment and mindset is a duty to one's self, family, community, and yes, the nation inferred by the second amendment.
Rather than sitting "bunkered down" in your home waiting for some imaginary range line (21 feet?) to be crossed, unaware of approaching danger, one would be better off warding the assailants off with an affinity group of your neighbors, perhaps at distances more likely to prevent molotov cocktails from coming through your windows.
Yes, pizzakiller, your .204 would be adequate. But, a $600 CMP Garand would be more than adequate, as well as being a fun range weapon and a fine investment. A tool that was built for the job at hand.
I pray that none of us ever find ourselves in such dire straits that we must take such action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top