Standing by.
The issue is that the conclusion is somewhat anodyne. Certainly requirements vary widely from shooter to shooter but all other things being equal of course stronger is usually better than weaker, but what does that really prove? I know I’d rather carry a rifle but my life doesn’t lend itself to that so once again individuals have different needs and that those needs influence which weapon they might go to.
I don’t think anyone can argue that a pistol is more lethal than a rifle. Rifle cartridges are more deadly for obvious reasons, longer barrels are more accurate than shorter ones and from a low-ready (ready being the operative word) I don’t see how a handgun comes out on top unless you consider other factors.
Circumstances don’t always allow for the perfect solutions and your test seems to maximize the virtues of a rifle and minimize the concealability/size virtues of the pistol.
Multiple scenarios from multiple distances and multiple conditions need to be tested to find where the pistol is superior and in a series of real tests I think you’ll find that that a rifle isn’t “always the better choice.”
Identifying those parameters will be very interesting.
A rifle with a red dot being faster than a pistol, I think this is true for most people.
At least for me. With an AR, I can keep my eyes open during the shots and just worry about dot/press, dot/press, etc. = a lot faster. I can’t do this consistently with a pistol yet, and I shoot my pistols about 3-4 times more than my car-beans.
I like when instructors set up drills or COF’s where it is NOT revolver or 1911 neutral. It is eye-opening for sure. When I am shooting the 1911, there is much internal cussing as I reload for the third time while a G17 shooter is still on mag one.
Likewise, when I shoot a G17 next to a G21 shooter and they need to reload three times vs my two in order to finish certain tasks, it is again eye-opening.
Why does it need to be “fair” or “level” in order to be a good comparison?
It depends on what you’re trying to demonstrate. If the only goal is to prove that with the proper accessories on one and by handicapping the other then by all means make the test, for the stated purposes of this thread, as “unfair” as you like.
If you want to really know which is faster then you need to put an RDS on both and feed both with the same amount of ammunition as reload speed is part of the overall speed of the platform.
So a typical pistol with it’s open sights is “handicapping” it? How is your primary HD pistol outfitted? Bet it doesn’t wear a RDS. If it is so important to level the field, I would think we would carry RDS equipped handguns - but we don’t.
Do you have any carbine, currently loaded and ready to go, without a RDS? I seem to believe you don’t…
I think he demonstrated exactly what he wanted to demonstrate, gaining an advantage is exactly what the RDS is about, and why they come so highly recommended by the top operators and their instructors.
Yeah Rob Leatham can beat me in a El Pres with his pistol and me with an SBR and a RDS, but he framed it as an “average shooter” with common equipment, commonly configured.
Should we load a G17 to 5+1 because the BG might only have a 686 revolver?
Now you’re just being silly.
If you want to know if one platform is “faster” than another you should remove all of the non-inherent features/variables and try them against each other. This isn’t about fighting or gaming, it’s just about one platform against the other. Giving one a bolt-on advantage simply because “most people have an RDS” is pointless and tells you nothing other than one gun with an RDS is faster than one without. Groundbreaking. :rolleyes:
If you want to find out what platform is better you simply create a battery of testing scenarios. Some “fair” to the rifle and some “fair” to the pistol and some fair to both.
Guys I went out again today with some more guns. Surprisingly Irons beat the dot.
I will post the photos and videos later on tonight they are still uploading.
11-30-09 Range report.
Hi I did the same short range drill today with 4 different rifles. Drill Started in low ready with the safety on for the AR’s. For the AK I cheated and started with the safety off. I am too slow and manipulating my AK safety.
Here are the times and hits.
Gun Saber Defense AR15 A2 (IRONS)
- 2,57
- 2.44
- 2.49
- 2.62
- 2.66
Average time 2,56
HITS
T1 9A 1C
T2 9A 1D
T3 7A 3C
TOTAL hits: 25 A 4 C 1D
Gun AR10 carbine
- 3.17
- 2.88
- 2.84
- 2.72
- 2.83
Average time 2.89
HITS
T1 4 A 2C 3D 1M
T2 9A 1C
T3 8A 2C
Total hits: 21 A 5 C 3D 1 M (miss)
Gun Saiga AK47 (Aimpoint ML2 4moa dot)
- 2.91
- 3.28
- 2.71
- 2.71
- 2.67
Average time 2.86
HITS
T1 9A 1C
T2 10A
T3 9A 1C
Total hits: 28 A 2C
N4 just ACOG
TIME
- 2.64
- 2.67
- 2.80
- 2.59
- 2.63
Average time 2.67
HITS
T1 8A 2C
T2 7A 3C
T3 8A 2C
Total hits : 23 A 7C
Conclusion. I need to practice more with my AR10. The recoil slowed me down and hurt my hits.
What is being silly is taking a personal defense carbine, as equipped, and dumbing it down so that the pistol stands a chance to compete in anything beyond 20yds, and with a less than ideal sighting system for everything else. Yet the pistol is not commonly found with such things as a RDS when set on a nightstand, in a carry holster, etc.
It looks like he wanted to test the “common man” and his “common guns”. Good points were brought up about testing them removing variables, which is fine, but at the end of the day that is not how the common man will deploy EITHER weapon, so why dumb it down or raise the other up to be something it will never be?
So my question becomes should we raise up our pistols to match the carbines, but ultimately compromising on ballistic capability or accept the carbines as a superior HD weapon? You know, the hypothesis of this thread?
Not to get off topic but the comments in this thread make me think of the evolution of the carbine from something basic to now having optics and generally acceptable to have a break for added recoil control as well as what may be the evolution of the fighting pistol since even the new fn(prototype) has provisions for an optic.
If you carry a handgun without optic or comp than you are simply not carrying the most profecient example of a handgun in terms of fast hits. If you are using a rifle withput either than again your rifle isnt the most profecient in terms of fast hits.
It only seems logical that if you are comparing the two in terms of which platform is most effecient you would be comparring the platforms not the accessories attached to them.
sorry if I seem to type disjointed as this is kinda how I think :rolleyes:
I’ve seen one custom rig setup for a fighting gun, and I think the owner was a rep from FN sporting an FN pistol with Dr Optic or RMR on the gun. I’ve never seen a real live carry or “tactical” setup show up on a firing line for serious range time, other than some fun shoots and such, that had a RDS on it…
You see that routinely at something other than a game match?
Surely it is, the gaming mentality is to classify the guns, the shooters, the gear all to level the playing field as best they can. That’s fine, that’s what sport is about.
Just because Rob Sloyer knows that a RDS’ed carbine is probably faster than an open sight pistol does not mean that everyone is born with that knowledge, and that it’s a pointless discussion.
In fact, there are probably people reading this thread who had never done split times with their pistol compared to their carbine. Regardless of variables, configurations, or anything else – and for them, this could be a useful thread in deciding which of their common guns with the common accessories found on them will give them an advantage in HD or PD.
Remember, just because you know it all, doesn’t mean that everyone does. We’re here to learn, and impart knowledge to users. Your suggested criteria modifications are a fine ADDITION to the testing, but not necessarily the answer to a more basic question that can help many.
I think that Pat’s tests show what may not be obvious to the average shooter/homeowner/shop owner or new gun owner.
I’ve been researching optic-enhanced handguns for some time, and I am about to get into such project, but, from what I’ve found so far, there could be a disagreement with above statement.
I tried this today at the range. The pistol I had with me (and which I always have with me) beat the rifle I left at home (and always leave at home). For me, that’s a valid test protocol. 
I do think comparing a RDS’d carbine with an iron sighted pistol is fair. At least as I imagined the purpose of this test, it was to compare whether someone with a typical carbine (which has a RDS these days) and a typical pistol (which only has irons) would get better hits and/or better speed with one over the other.
It’s certainly legitimate to add iron sighted carbines and optic’d pistols to the mix, and this provides more data. But it doesn’t invalidate the initial test or concept.
F2S, if you get a chance, run the FAST with your long gun. Start from both hands off of and away from the rifle. I’m genuinely interested to see how the result compares to your pistol (concealed) score.
All the videos are below.
Hi I have been enjoying having a camera that does video. Please don’t make fun of the hat. I know it looks dorky but it was raining and it kept my head dry. In my testing the Ak was only every so slightly slower on my runs compared to the AR’s. I got good hits with it too. Having a red dot on the AK helps. I know this does not prove anything really but it was fun to do.
AK 47 video
http://www.youtube.com/user/Alaskapopo#p/a/u/1/3j3i_n7LuP0
http://www.youtube.com/user/Alaskapopo#p/a/u/0/qhFbYB55mis
Noveske Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi7DKYdU6Q8
Larue video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyAJAC1-Ufs
Pistol video
http://www.youtube.com/user/Alaskapopo#p/a/u/2/VmNrsFoq2c8
I shot more guns but youtube is not taking uploads at the moment so I will post the other video later.
Saber A2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDBqlNeoJG8 Shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=721rZXLU1dg hits on target
Noveske with just ACOG (bindon point aiming concept)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksh8WqmXNIY
AR10 carbine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMyOusJghBw
Basically this started off with Marvins and my debate over rather a pistol or a carbine was faster to use a close range. I set up 3 targets at 7 yards each target is 3 yards apart. I started in the low ready and fired 2 rounds at each target as fast as I could and then recorded the hits.
Noveske N4 carbine Aimpoint T1 used.
TIME
- 2.69
- 3.07
- 2.58
- 2.58
- 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
T1 8 Alpha 2 Charlie
T2 9 Alpha 1 Charlie
T3 4 Alpha 5 Charlie (one shot was not fired)
TOTAL HITS: 21 A 8C (one round not fired)
Noveske using just the ACOG
TIME
- 2.64
- 2.67
- 2.80
- 2.59
- 2.63
Average time 2.67
HITS
T1 8A 2C
T2 7A 3C
T3 8A 2C
Total hits : 23 A 7C
Pistol: STI Edge in 40sw. My limited gun for USPSA. Caliber 40sw.
TIME
- 2.88
- 3.01
- 3.10
- 3.10
- 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 7 B&C’s 1 D hit
Gun Larue Stealth Rifle
TIME
- 2.52
- 2.59
- 2.50
- 2.56
- 2.69
Average Time 2.57
HITS
T1 9A 1C
T2 10A
T3 8A 2C
TOTAL Hits: 27 A 3 C
Gun Saber Defense AR15 A2 (IRONS)
- 2,57
- 2.44
- 2.49
- 2.62
- 2.66
Average time 2,56
HITS
T1 9A 1C
T2 9A 1D
T3 7A 3C
TOTAL hits: 25 A 4 C 1D
Gun AR10 carbine
- 3.17
- 2.88
- 2.84
- 2.72
- 2.83
Average time 2.89
HITS
T1 4 A 2C 3D 1M
T2 9A 1C
T3 8A 2C
Total hits: 21 A 5 C 3D 1 M (miss)
Gun Saiga AK47
- 2.91
- 3.28
- 2.71
- 2.71
- 2.67
Average time 2.86
HITS
T1 9A 1C
T2 10A
T3 9A 1C
Total hits: 28 A 2C
The other thing to remember is that most USPSA Open guns are using an optic bolted to the frame, not one attached to a reciprocating slide. That plays a big role in how easy it is to follow the dot.
IIRC the OP and the original topic elsewhere was relating to home defense, not concealed carry. I would argue that anywhere you can take a carbine you can take a pistol with a frame-mounted optic. Especially if that “anywhere” is primarily inside your own home.
One thing I have noticed at least for me is that Irons are slightly faster than a red dot at 15 yards and less on a AR15. My times with the Iron Sighted A2 rivaled my Larue 3 gun rig with the Swarovski optic and beat the red dot on my Noveske and AK.
Pat
I think you have the “hypothesis” wrong. You, and a lot of others, are putting way more into this than the original concept would merit.
Which gun is faster. Period. I think this should begin with both guns similarly outfitted, and identically loaded. If widgets and doodads are necessary to make one better than the other then that pretty much answers the initial question without ever firing a shot IMHO.
FWIW, I think that with a couple of hours of training an average shooter can still be faster with the carbine at close range than the pistol, even when both are wearing iron sights. It’s a matter of explaining how to use irons at close range and giving the shooter a few chances to practice the technique(s) so that they can get them down. Just like you would have to do with a new pistol shooter. Which is why I think this insistence that the carbine in question wear an RDS is silly. It’s not necessary for the carbine to “win” at all.
I’m reminded of the “fan complaint” episodes of Mythbusters. They do one of their tests and the fans go nuts on the internet telling them all the ways they fucked it up. The good news about this is that (A) they usually do a followup show where they address the concerns and (B) their tests now try to preempt any of the complaints by removing all variables and doubts.
The RDS, in this case, is a source of variable and doubt. and it’s unnecessary to boot. I see absolutely no reason NOT to remove it from the carbine in order to have a baseline, more “fair” (I hate that word, a fair is where you go to ride shitty rides and laugh at people with no teeth) initial test. My money says that the carbine will still win if implemented properly. I’d like to see the test run with an out-of-the-box Glock 19 (or 17, or even 34) and an out-of-the-box Colt 6920 where both are loaded with 15 rounds in each of two magazines, the shooter is required to put two rounds on each of 9 targets, and the scenario incorporates shooting on the move as well as partially obscured targets (like with a non-threat).
Regardless of whether the optic is on either gun (as usual neither side is going to publicly admit they may be wrong), I think an interesting off-shoot discussion would be of the scenario that should be set up for the test. I propose the following:
Begin with two magazines with 15 rounds each. Start at “cover 1” (no penalty for not using it “correctly” as long as it’s consistent) and engage 3 targets. Move to the strong side laterally while engaging 3 targets. Arrive at “cover 2” and engage 3 remaining targets. Guns should be fired to empty and “emergency reload” employed. Each array of targets has one target each at 7, 10, and 15 yards. Right-handed shooters begin at the left and move to the right, left-handed shooters begin at the right and move left. All shots must be in the IDPA -0 or IPSC A-zone.