Handgun Accuracy, What is your take?
- Thread starter pilpens
- Start date
DiscoRacing
New member
I have no idea about the 25yards.
... we dont shoot that far with handguns
our target is only 13 yards...
.. If I have to shoot someone with my handgun... It will NOT be 40 ft away.
... we dont shoot that far with handguns
our target is only 13 yards...
.. If I have to shoot someone with my handgun... It will NOT be 40 ft away.
I was reading an article about groups, and how much they grow as shots are added. It didn't have anything to do with sights, or ammo, or shooter fatigue, but more like statistical probability. It was pretty interesting, and the basic premise was "three-shot groups are worthless". A ten-shot group WILL be almost half-again as large as a three-shot group from the same gun, so while you may be able to get a three-shot cloverleaf, those three shots would essentially be random shots within a group that included seven additional shots, so you can't draw any conclusions about accuracy, or sight-in, from a three-shot group. When shooting a pistol for groups, I shoot ten rounds, and borrowing from a theory espoused by Massad Ayoob, I consider the ten-round group to be what I can do, and the best six to be what the gun can do. I find that the best six are usually about half the size of the total group.
Well, to clarify, with each shot added, there is zero chance of the group shrinking from the size it was 1 shot earlier. I was, however, referring to the chance that a single group the shooter shot would be smaller than what the gun could deliver from a ransom rest.
It's oversimplified, but if the shooter himself is capable of shooting roughly within 3-fold of the gun's accuracy, there's a 50% chance that the shooter will make a single shot that's more accurate shot than the gun itself can deliver. The 2nd shot lowers that chance to 25%, the 3rd, 4th and 5th to 12.5, 6.3 and 3.2%, respectively.
On average, the same good shooter's groups will be bigger than what the gun can deliver, but, statistically, once in a great while, he'll nail one that'll be smaller.
blackspyder
Inactive
Accurate to me is unloading 1 magazine, rapid pace, at 10 yards into a 12"x12" target and putting as many holes in the paper as the capacity of the mag. If one aims Center Mass 12"x12" is approximately the same size or smaller then most people's torso. I'm content with that.
accuracy
Virtually all of my pistol shooting is target shooting and the standard noted above works for me. it is what I expect from a particular gun/ammo combination.
I was told once that the smaller the group that a gun will produce, the larger the target becomes. Of course, that is without adding me into the equation.
Pete
+1
Virtually all of my pistol shooting is target shooting and the standard noted above works for me. it is what I expect from a particular gun/ammo combination.
I was told once that the smaller the group that a gun will produce, the larger the target becomes. Of course, that is without adding me into the equation.
Pete
Now that I am using my wheezing breathe sounds like sonar to see the target,if I can get all hits inside a pieplate at 15 yards I'm really happy.
The days of me hoisting a rifle like I used to a bb gun and making a sixty yard open sights bullseye are long gone.
Therefore any gun that makes a two inch group at fifteen yards makes me happy.
Pretty much means most guns can make the grade with me shooting them.
The days of me hoisting a rifle like I used to a bb gun and making a sixty yard open sights bullseye are long gone.
Therefore any gun that makes a two inch group at fifteen yards makes me happy.
Pretty much means most guns can make the grade with me shooting them.
Peter M. Eick
New member
I don't see that 5 shots tells you much. I find that I can "luck into" 5 good shots in a row and "fake myself out" to my skill level.
You should put 50 in a row on paper to see your skill level.
For example: Here is 50 shots, 15 yrds with an SW 41 shot offhand.
Obviously I need to work on my groups a bit.
50 shots, 15 yrds, offhand with a Baer. You can see the grip was moving and I was vertical stringing the shots.
50 shots, 15 yrds, offhand with my carry gun.
To me, this is a more reasonable test of the gun and the shooter. You need at least 50 shots in a row to really tell how you are doing. Obviously I need to practice more because this is only at 15 yrds and I should really be back at 25 yrds. That is my goal for 2011. Move from 15 to 25 yrds yet maintain my group size for 50 shots.
You should put 50 in a row on paper to see your skill level.
For example: Here is 50 shots, 15 yrds with an SW 41 shot offhand.
Obviously I need to work on my groups a bit.
50 shots, 15 yrds, offhand with a Baer. You can see the grip was moving and I was vertical stringing the shots.
50 shots, 15 yrds, offhand with my carry gun.
To me, this is a more reasonable test of the gun and the shooter. You need at least 50 shots in a row to really tell how you are doing. Obviously I need to practice more because this is only at 15 yrds and I should really be back at 25 yrds. That is my goal for 2011. Move from 15 to 25 yrds yet maintain my group size for 50 shots.
I actually hate using "group size" as any form of meanful information about how well a gun or a shooter performs.
Who cares if a group of 5 shots is all touching and is 4" away from the center of the target?
To me, that's 5 shots that have missed 100%.
What I find a much more realistic measurment is uing an A-36 target. The one with 9 bullesyes. And firing one shot at the center of each bullseye.
The other thing I've seen...
Looking at Peter's first target...
I have no doubt in my mind that both shooter and gun could easily reduce the bullet spread (for lack of a better term, I'll refer to it as a "group") by as much as 75%.
I've found that once the center of the "group" gets chewed away, it's difficult to focus on a point to aim at. The result is that the "group" gets larger than it should.
Peter,
You might want to give the method I mention above a try. I see some real potential in your targets for becoming a real "precision" shooter.
Who cares if a group of 5 shots is all touching and is 4" away from the center of the target?
To me, that's 5 shots that have missed 100%.
What I find a much more realistic measurment is uing an A-36 target. The one with 9 bullesyes. And firing one shot at the center of each bullseye.
The other thing I've seen...
Looking at Peter's first target...
I have no doubt in my mind that both shooter and gun could easily reduce the bullet spread (for lack of a better term, I'll refer to it as a "group") by as much as 75%.
I've found that once the center of the "group" gets chewed away, it's difficult to focus on a point to aim at. The result is that the "group" gets larger than it should.
Peter,
You might want to give the method I mention above a try. I see some real potential in your targets for becoming a real "precision" shooter.
As long as I hit what I shoot at, all else is irrelevant to me.
I love to plink, and occasionally I'll submerse myself in the ho-hum monotony of shooting paper targets. Paper targets, for me, are for "sighting in" whatever gun I'm shooting. Once that's done, I do a whole lot more practical shooting than range stuff.
While walking the desert or hills with a handgun, I'll take an occasional shot at a distant rock, pine cone, dirt clod, or whatever. I'll also shoot small varmints as opportunity provides.
And I don't limit my distances to 25 yards. Once you can hit a pine cone at 50-75+ yards, hitting a 12" paper target at 15 or 25 yards becomes monotonous and somewhat less than entertaining.
So, accuracy to me is what I can do with whatever handgun/firearm I'm holding. My firearms all have the capability to better than I can shoot them, so I figure it's my job to increase my abilities as much as I can.
I love to plink, and occasionally I'll submerse myself in the ho-hum monotony of shooting paper targets. Paper targets, for me, are for "sighting in" whatever gun I'm shooting. Once that's done, I do a whole lot more practical shooting than range stuff.
While walking the desert or hills with a handgun, I'll take an occasional shot at a distant rock, pine cone, dirt clod, or whatever. I'll also shoot small varmints as opportunity provides.
And I don't limit my distances to 25 yards. Once you can hit a pine cone at 50-75+ yards, hitting a 12" paper target at 15 or 25 yards becomes monotonous and somewhat less than entertaining.
So, accuracy to me is what I can do with whatever handgun/firearm I'm holding. My firearms all have the capability to better than I can shoot them, so I figure it's my job to increase my abilities as much as I can.
A single 5-shot group won't tell you much. IMO, honest and consistent 5-shot groups do, though.
I posted my metric for what I consider good shooting several times, and while it uses the 5-shot group, it also always includes "honest and consistent" as a qualifier.
"Honest" means everything counts. No fliers. Groups that're big because of fliers will average out if the fliers are true fliers and truly exceptional.
"Consistent" means just that. That once-in-a-lifetime group is terrific, but it isn't what you do consistently.
On a couple of occasions I've shot 6 shot groups from my S & W 29 (44 Magnum) and got 4" groups at 100 yards with open sights. I did have the gun on a sandbag. With a scope I would think a handgun would be capable of very good accuracy.
2 1/2" groups at 25 yards? I would consider that so-so accuracy if you do any reloading.
2 1/2" groups at 25 yards? I would consider that so-so accuracy if you do any reloading.
I forget where it was posted, but somebody had a clever way of having your cake and eating it too on this. His idea was to shoot 5-shot groups (may have been 10-shot groups, but the point is the same), but use two targets one on top of the other, then only change the top target for each new group. You get new groups to measure each time on the top target while the bottom one maintains a record of all shots.
First, without getting bogged down with too tight definitions of the wording, I believe that many can benefit by extending the distances that they practice if they are interested in improving their accuracy; benefits include better shorter range accuracy.
I regularly shoot out to 100 yards with pistols. Because of this I have some "target models" and accuracy guarantee guns, and guns which I have had "tightened up". I can easily notice the difference when I am shooting these guns out at 100 yards. I can see the difference on a target at 25 yards, and at 15 yards.
Granted, I/the shooter can make or break a good group. By having pistols capable of making a group at 100 yards, and practicing making a group at 100 yards, this all translates to "more accurate" shooting at much shorter distances. The greater distances really let you know when your fundamentals can use some fine tuning.
Also please note that I am an "accuracy person"; meaning that I am motivated to achieve accurate shooting.
Then again, if you go to youtube and watch Hickok45 shooting out to 230 yards with a stock Glock or a 1911, the shooter really makes almost all of the difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFd3kF6LHz4
L_Killkenny
New member
To cut to the chase, YOUR shooting isn't bad, not great either. During the summer I have a 2" spinner set up about 18 yards away from my deck. When I'm on I can hit about 4 outta 5 shots off hand. The older I get the harder it is to be "on" though. That is wit ha Ruger 22/45 5.5 bull barrel.
Now to the issue of your centerfire groups being larger than your rimfire groups. You made no mention of the guns you are shooting and 3" groups with most outta the box semiauto centerfires is pretty darn good. Now if you are talkin a SA or Da revolver thats a different matter. Maybe it's the gun, maybe it's you. I don't know and I don't know if you're accuracy sample is 10 guns of each (centerfire/rimfire) or one gun of each. But I've never seen centerfires being inherently less accurate that rimfires.
Personally, I don't think the average shooter could do as well as you are doing.
Now that you know what groups you are getting, FOR LORDS SAKE STOP SHOOTING FROM A BENCH!!. Learn how to shoot off hand and with improvised rests.
LK
Now to the issue of your centerfire groups being larger than your rimfire groups. You made no mention of the guns you are shooting and 3" groups with most outta the box semiauto centerfires is pretty darn good. Now if you are talkin a SA or Da revolver thats a different matter. Maybe it's the gun, maybe it's you. I don't know and I don't know if you're accuracy sample is 10 guns of each (centerfire/rimfire) or one gun of each. But I've never seen centerfires being inherently less accurate that rimfires.
Personally, I don't think the average shooter could do as well as you are doing.
Now that you know what groups you are getting, FOR LORDS SAKE STOP SHOOTING FROM A BENCH!!. Learn how to shoot off hand and with improvised rests.
LK
Ole 5 hole group
New member
Where do you find these handguns that shoot 10-shot groups of less than 2 inches at 50 yards consistently and what do you pay for these firearms?
Ed Brown doesn't give a written guarantee relative to his firearm's accuracy from a mechanical rest but Les Baer and a couple others will and the best that can be had, presently, is a 1.5 inch group at 50 yards and those puppies will cost you some serious coin and your choice of ammo will be very limited in achieving that accuracy.
There isn't a man alive that can shoot off his hind legs and keep 10 shots within 1.5" consistently with a 22, 32 or larger and 45 caliber at 50 yards - otherwise the world record for conventional pistol (bullseye) set back in the early 1970's would have been broken long ago.
I've shot with and competed against some mighty good shooters and at 50 yards if you can keep all your rounds within a 2" radius of that X within the X ring (4" group) you can consider yourself a good shooter and one who can keep up with most big dogs in the tall grass.
There are a few revolvers out there that will keep up with the bottom feeders and some that will do a little better but 2" at 50 yards is very rare from any commerical/factory handgun.
If you can keep all your rounds within 3" at 25 yards you have a good handgun and if you can shoot that well off your hind legs consistently, then you obviously have put in the trigger time required to be a good shot.
Ed Brown doesn't give a written guarantee relative to his firearm's accuracy from a mechanical rest but Les Baer and a couple others will and the best that can be had, presently, is a 1.5 inch group at 50 yards and those puppies will cost you some serious coin and your choice of ammo will be very limited in achieving that accuracy.
There isn't a man alive that can shoot off his hind legs and keep 10 shots within 1.5" consistently with a 22, 32 or larger and 45 caliber at 50 yards - otherwise the world record for conventional pistol (bullseye) set back in the early 1970's would have been broken long ago.
I've shot with and competed against some mighty good shooters and at 50 yards if you can keep all your rounds within a 2" radius of that X within the X ring (4" group) you can consider yourself a good shooter and one who can keep up with most big dogs in the tall grass.
There are a few revolvers out there that will keep up with the bottom feeders and some that will do a little better but 2" at 50 yards is very rare from any commerical/factory handgun.
If you can keep all your rounds within 3" at 25 yards you have a good handgun and if you can shoot that well off your hind legs consistently, then you obviously have put in the trigger time required to be a good shot.