Pistols are Pistols, and Rifles are Rifles...

The title is an oft-repeated phrase at the gunnie favorite "Box 'o' Truth" website. For those not familiar with the Box 'o' Truth, it's run by a gentleman in Texas who has his own range, a burning curiosity about ballistics, and far more fun than the average human. He's kind of a gunnie Mythbuster and tester of truisms, checking on such diverse topics as the penetration of .223 Remington, the power of the .357 Magnum, and whether or not the .30 Carbine is stopped by heavy clothing.

Usually the "pistols are pistols, and rifles are rifles" line comes after a succession of handgun rounds fail to adequately penetrate the medium of the day. A rifle round is used for comparison, and almost always performs as expected - cutting through like a hot knife through butter in most cases. The superiority of the rifle and rifle cartridges is graphically brought home in test after test, with the end result most often being that handguns are pale substitutes for long arms in stopping power, penetration, and all-around power.

This is not in dispute; even the largest and most outrageous of pistol calibers barely approach the power offered in the .30-30. What it comes down to, however, is portability - even in the most gun-friendly areas of the country, carrying a loaded rifle is generally frowned upon at best, illegal at worst. Even where legal, the practicality is a matter for debate - even the lightest and most portable of rifles require slings and such. For the vast majority of folks, carrying a handgun is simply easier - and therefore more likely to happen - than a rifle.

That's not to say that rifles don't have their place in the average gunnie arsenal. First and foremost, there's the hunting aspect - while many places have handgun hunting seasons and game that can be taken, rifle or shotgun hunting is far more common. The range afforded a rifle, combined with the stopping power for a humane kill, make the rifle a superior hunting arm for most applications. Secondly, a rifle, usually a carbine, or a shotgun set up in home defense configuration makes an excellent weapon with which to protect one's home. The extra power of the rifle, the larger capacity of a rifle magazine over a pistol, and the increased effectiveness make the rifle an excellent home defense weapon.

So we train with our handguns at "conversational distances" ranging from 5 yards to 25 yards (the "average" confrontation occurring at a distance of something like 21 feet). Training with a home defense arm should also happen around that same distance, with perhaps a carbine being tested out to the full 25 yards for a maximum distance for training. Beyond 25 yards, it gets harder and harder to argue self-defense as a reason for engaging, at least under most normal circumstances.

Why, then, do we insist on training with rifles at 100 yards or more?

Certainly, if one hunts it makes sense to practice at longer distances. Ditto if one enjoys participating in long range shooting competitions - it takes an amazing amount of skill and training to consistently achieve sub-minute-of-angle groupings at extreme ranges (>200 yards). Heck, it's a useful skill to have in general for a myriad reasons, one of the most pressing being that we are, at heart, a nation of riflemen, a spirit embodied by the Appleseed Project and the fine men and women that devote their time to creating better rifle shooters.

Personally, though, the value of using scarce range time to practice a skill I have little use for is questionable. I'd rather spend an hour on the pistol range improving my handgunning technique over shrinking my 150 yard groups. I don't begrudge anyone for training and practicing at long range, mind you; it's just that I view it as the least important part of my own personal firearms training. I train with my pistols first, my defensive shotgun second, defensive carbine third, and then long range at the tail end (so far, nothing). I arrange it according to my perceived need - in my own opinion, I'm far more likely to need to use a handgun competently than a 200 yard rifle. It's not to say that I think rifle skills are unimportant; just that they are less important than handgun skills.

What do you think - are skills with a handgun more important, less important, or equally important as long-distance skills with a rifle?

That is all.