“MOA of a handgun”

Just an additional note about group size and moa. Remember that the relationship is not linear. A sighting square of one inch (Basically one MOA) on a side has an area of one square inch. A sighting square that is four MOA on a side has an area of 16 square inches.
The target may be four times the distance but it is 16 times larger.
 
That's true if one defines group size in terms of area-something that is rarely, if ever, done. I can't recall ever having seen it done in the shooting world. I have seen that general sort of thing done when discussing artillery or missile accuracy, but that's sort of a different animal.

In general, groups are measured center-to-center of the two shots farthest apart. That's a linear measurement, not an area measurement. It is measured in inches, not in square inches. The relationship between the angular size of a group--measured as a linear measurement as is traditional--and the range is linear.
 
John: you are, of course, correct concerning group size. I mistitled my post. I was thinking more about target size as opposed to group size.
Pete
 
There are actually 2 different types of accuracy for firearms; mechanical accuracy and practical accuracy.

Mechanical accuracy is the group size a firearm can produce based upon it's mechanical design when locked into a ransom rest and fired remotely. It's the sum of the tolerances that affect group size and has nothing to do with the sights. Rather it's all about how well the design produces repeatable shots.

Practical accuracy is the more important measure as it is the accuracy obtainable by a shooter actually using the firearm. It is a result of the mechanical accuracy minus the shooter's inability to employ the firearm perfectly as in a ransom rest.

So ergonomics favors the rifle over any pistol giving it an advantage in practical accuracy. The fact that the pistol is employed with just the hands held out straight and no 3rd point shoulder rest, the sight radius being significantly shorter, the recoil absorbed solely by the extended hands and arms vs by the body, etc., all reduce the practical accuracy potential to the degree they make it harder for a shooter to employ a pistol precisely.

For instance, revolvers with their high bore axis design are harder to shoot as precisely as semi-autos with their lower bore axis as the recoil impulse produces more muzzle rise in the revolver and both pistol types produce more muzzle rise than a rifle with it's buttstock planted firmly in the shooter's shoulder.

So, a pistol has inherently less practical accuracy than a rifle as it's design makes holding it steady on target much more difficult. Add to that the sight radius is significantly shorter further degrading the ability of the shooter to aim precisely.

That's why generally, rifles use MOA at a given longer range as an accuracy measurement while pistols use group size at a much shorter given range as theirs.
 
JohnKSa said:
It's Minute Of Angle. Settled that one! :D
Click to expand...

....but does that relate to accuracy or precision?

Most gun folks know what MOA is. Most relate it to a group size of 1" or less at 100 yards. Quite simple really, but there's always that one or two persons that has to complicate the whole deal with theorems and the chastising of calling it "accuracy" instead of "precision". I was making a joke relative to this. Thanks for being so "accurate".


....or was it being "precise"?
 
Yes, I realized it was humor and tried to respond in kind. It's difficult to get that kind of thing across sometimes.

MOA is a unit of measure that can be used to measure EITHER accuracy or precision, however either one is defined. :D
 
I want to piggyback off COSteve's distinction between mechanical accuracy and practical accuracy.

A rifle capable of 1 MOA accuracy, shot by a shooter capable of holding 1 MOA accuracy will still put bullets outside of that 1" target occasionally, because the errant factors between the shooter and his equipment are multiplied by each other.

I remember zeroing a scope recently, and fretting over the fine tuning, as the group got smaller, each shot had to be critiqued more minutely as to whether its location on the target was due to the shooter or the equipment.

With a handgun, this effect is much greater. Closer range, larger diameter bullets, cruder sights, and the effectiveness of the shooter are more difficult to diagnose correctly. Even when all the fundamentals are there, a bullet might land an inch left of the point of aim at 25 yards, and its difficult to determine the reason. Most handun sights are not capable of being minutely adjusted to allow a great shooter of truly exploiting the mechanical accuracy, which then hiders the practical accuracy, as there is difficultly in determining the mechanical accuracy and its ergonomic relationship with the shooter.
 
https://blog.forecast.it/hs-fs/hubfs/accuracy-precision.jpg?width=454&name=accuracy-precision.jpg

Accuracy vs. Precision:

Precision is the size of the group without regard to the aim point, AKA Repeatability.

Accuracy is (in simple terms) the |sum of the distance| of each shot from the aim point.

They are different. MOA, when shooting at a target (like a deer), is the latter, not the former. (i.e.; Having all 5 shot hit within 0.1 inch from each other, but 100 yards from the deer is a worthless result and somewhat meaningless when the target ran away)
 
MOA can be used to measure either the group size OR the distance of the point of impact from the point of aim.

MOA is simply a measure of angular distance and can be used to measure any angular distance desired, whether it's the distance between the two shots farthest apart in a group, the distance between the point of impact and the point of aim, or the angular distance between two stars in the night sky.
 
TXAZ said:
Accuracy vs. Precision:

Precision is the size of the group without regard to the aim point, AKA Repeatability.

Accuracy is (in simple terms) the |sum of the distance| of each shot from the aim point.

They are different. MOA, when shooting at a target (like a deer), is the latter, not the former. (i.e.; Having all 5 shot hit within 0.1 inch from each other, but 100 yards from the deer is a worthless result and somewhat meaningless when the target ran away)
Click to expand...
I agree with your definitions of precision v. accuracy.

I disagree that MOA refers to the latter. When we (at least, most shooters of my acquaintance) talk about a rifle that's capable of 1 MOA or 1/2 MOA, they are referring to the size of the groups that rifle will produce, not where the group falls relative to point-of-aim. If the rifle is capable of consistent groups (which is "precision"), accuracy is then a question of sight regulation ... and shooter. Neither of those affects the MOA precision of the firearm.

Using your example of shooting at a deer: If you shoot at a deer with a sub-MOA rifle and miss -- that doesn't mean the rifle was suddenly not capable of sub-MOA "precision," it means you missed.
 
I hadn’t heard of measuring handgun accuracy in MOA, vs a “x” group at Y yards.

Has anyone else?
_________________
Click to expand...

No, because most of us pure hand gunners don't know what MOA even means and just give a blank stare when someone wants to talk to us about MOA :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top