Accuracy testing standards?

[pettypace]

It's probably safe to say that of the next 100 shots fired by police officers in the line of duty, fewer than 50 will hit the intended target. While the gun and ammunition may be capable of 5 inch groups, for a shooter under "combat" conditions, 5 foot groups are probably more likely.

Having never pulled a trigger in fear or anger, I'm not prepared to blame that entirely on bad marksmanship or bad training.

[Larry Gibson]

If we pay attention to what Leatham says in that video, he is not saying we should not aim. He is saying we should not worry about aiming until trigger control is perfected. He further states w/o trigger control aiming is useless. He is correct. Learn how to properly pull or press the trigger first, then learn how to aim.

Rob Leatham always uses the sights when he shoots, regardless of the distance to the target. Rob Leatham has about as perfect trigger control as it can get.

[44MAG#1]

I believe I stated in post 41 that more accuracy is LOST at the trigger than anywhere else.

[pettypace]

I believe I stated in post 41 that more accuracy is LOST at the trigger than anywhere else.

Indeed you did. And the link to the Leatham video in post 42 was intended to reinforce your point.

[44MAG#1]

Indeed you did. And the link to the Leatham video in post 42 was intended to reinforce your point.

Thank you.

[megasupermagnum]

I believe I stated in post 41 that more accuracy is LOST at the trigger than anywhere else.

I agree with you 100%. Besides a real accuracy test, magazines should also publish the actual measured trigger pulls.

[44MAG#1]

I agree with you 100%. Besides a real accuracy test, magazines should also publish the actual measured trigger pulls.

Operation of the trigger.
Some could operate a 5 pound trigger better than some could a 2.5 pound trigger.

[Thumbcocker]

Wasn't there a magazine that tested guns and reported results? Gun tests? Is it still a going concern? I can't imagine advertisers beating down their door.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[megasupermagnum]

Operation of the trigger.
Some could operate a 5 pound trigger better than some could a 2.5 pound trigger.

Well sure, but you won't find a 5+ lb trigger on any real accuracy handgun. I know I wouldn't be too happy buying a handgun for hunting and finding out it had a 6 lb trigger. These are things that should be advertised in these articles. The "Accuracy" at 7 yards, and a bunch of fluff paragraphs of nothing common today are terrible.

[44MAG#1]

Well sure, but you won't find a 5+ lb trigger on any real accuracy handgun. I know I wouldn't be too happy buying a handgun for hunting and finding out it had a 6 lb trigger. These are things that should be advertised in these articles. The "Accuracy" at 7 yards, and a bunch of fluff paragraphs of nothing common today are terrible.

My point is that proper trigger control is required for accurate shooting
Grabbing, snatching, jerking or what ever we call it is not conducive to accurate shooting regardless of the weight.
To many look for some quick fix to accuracy when the biggest variable is the one firing the gun.
That is my belief based on years of watching many, many, many, many, many people shoot handguns.

[megasupermagnum]

My point is that proper trigger control is required for accurate shooting
Grabbing, snatching, jerking or what ever we call it is not conducive to accurate shooting regardless of the weight.
To many look for some quick fix to accuracy when the biggest variable is the one firing the gun.
That is my belief based on years of watching many, many, many, many, many people shoot handguns.

And my point is you have drawn this thread so far off track it has completely derailed. This thread is about magazine articles mainly, as well as any other review online or otherwise of handguns. You aren't wrong in your opinion, but you aren't right here either. Different handguns definitely have different accuracy potential, and it is not being tested at 7 yards, no if's, and's or but's about it. If those garbage tests were real, a Glock 21 would be just as accurate as a high end 1911, but they aren't. You know it, and I know it. Put a good 1911 in the hands of a new shooter, of course they aren't going to be good, but both shot side by side by a good shooter, the Glock 21 will never touch a high end 1911 in accuracy.

[44MAG#1]

And my point is you have drawn this thread so far off track it has completely derailed. This thread is about magazine articles mainly, as well as any other review online or otherwise of handguns. You aren't wrong in your opinion, but you aren't right here either. Different handguns definitely have different accuracy potential, and it is not being tested at 7 yards, no if's, and's or but's about it. If those garbage tests were real, a Glock 21 would be just as accurate as a high end 1911, but they aren't. You know it, and I know it. Put a good 1911 in the hands of a new shooter, of course they aren't going to be good, but both shot side by side by a good shooter, the Glock 21 will never touch a high end 1911 in accuracy.

The reason many accuracy test are now at the shorter ranges is because writers try to draw the larger crowds. Many like to go to the range and shoot 3, 5, 7 and 10 yards rapidly because they think they are going into battle.
So why post 25 or 50 yard accuracy tests when most of those type shooters couldn't care less about them?
Plus a smart writer knows most can't shoot a handgun worth a dime so why bother testing at longer ranges?
A good shooter will shoot a Glock better than a bad shooter will shoot a Glock just like a good shooter will shoot a 1911 better than a bad shooter will shoot a 1911. I have both.
Go to the shooting range and one will have their eyes opened. So why test at 25 or 50 yards for the majority of shooters?

[dtknowles]

Very close to Hatcher's data from the 1930s:



(From Hatcher's Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers, page 393.)

I am going to have to disagree with the esteemed Col. Hatcher. Those tests as presented do not demonstrate the relative accuracy potential of the tested cartridges. They do demonstrate, to a degree, reasonable accuracy expectations for repeating handguns in general. Notice that the lesser powered cartridges performed better. Notice the large group size as well for the big bore guns. 6 to 10 moa for 40 to 45 cal. I am not a fan of using a muzzle rest either. I think we know better now. It does confirm a personal belief that an accurate big bore gun should shoot groups smaller than 2 inches at 25 yards, 8 moa or better. If you adjust that for 7 yards that would be about a half inch group, seems silly.

Not meaning to disrespect Hatcher but we have come a long way since then and now we are falling backward.

Tim

[dtknowles]

I believe I stated in post 41 that more accuracy is LOST at the trigger than anywhere else.

One thing I noticed is that a lot of new guns have bad triggers. Bad triggers is probably not saying it right but they have triggers that are not conducive to fine accuracy. They are more about simple operation and safety without a safety. I have been a single action auto pistol fan; I don't like double action or DAO semiauto pistols. I was showing off a new acquisition at a friend's backyard range and he brought out his new carry pistol. I don't even remember what make and model it was, but it was one of the hammerless DAO types. It was odd to me. I could shoot it fine in its own way, hitting his large steel target at short range was not hard but the long trigger pull was annoying. I understand the benefits of that design for CCW but accuracy was certainly put in the backseat.
Tim

[44MAG#1]

Due to my inept ineptness I failed to say clearly that IMPROPER OPERATION of the trigger (good or bad Triggers) is where more accuracy IS LOST.
A gun with a properly operated bad trigger will deliver more accuracy than the same gun with the trigger improperly operated.
Same can be said of a gun with a good trigger.
Good equals good and bad equals bad.
The shooter is the weakest link of the chain of accuracy.
Because of the weak link it is easier to shoot well up close.

[pettypace]

I am going to have to disagree with the esteemed Col. Hatcher. Those tests as presented do not demonstrate the relative accuracy potential of the tested cartridges. They do demonstrate, to a degree, reasonable accuracy expectations for repeating handguns in general. Notice that the lesser powered cartridges performed better. Notice the large group size as well for the big bore guns. 6 to 10 moa for 40 to 45 cal. I am not a fan of using a muzzle rest either. I think we know better now. It does confirm a personal belief that an accurate big bore gun should shoot groups smaller than 2 inches at 25 yards, 8 moa or better. If you adjust that for 7 yards that would be about a half inch group, seems silly.

Not meaning to disrespect Hatcher but we have come a long way since then and now we are falling backward.

Tim

Your disagreement is probably more with me than with Hatcher. My showing that accuracy table out of context didn't do the Colonel (or the state of the art a hundred years ago) full justice.

Here's the next page from Hatcher's Textbook:

[44MAG#1]

Your disagreement is probably more with me than with Hatcher. My showing that accuracy table out of context didn't do the Colonel (or the state of the art a hundred years ago) full justice.

Here's the next page from Hatcher's Textbook:

I wonder how that load would shoot in the hands of the today's shooting range "whizbangs" of today shooting offhand standing at 50 yards in their 1911?

[contender1]

Thumbcocker,, yes,, there is/was a magazine called "Gun Tests." I used to subscribe to it. However,, I was always dismayed at their "comparisons" articles.
They would take a $500 gun, a $300 gun, and a $100 gun (example only) and compare them side by side. Almost always,, they found the more expensive gun to be the "best overall." I always wanted them to do REAL comparisons of guns that were almost identical in types & models.

Robbie Leatham,, doesn't ALWAYS use his sights. He has such well trained abilities,,, that SOMETIMES,, his "instincts" allow him to shoot accurately w/o the sights. And yes,, his stressing the trigger control is spot on.

When I teach,, I stress that you have to be able to have a good trigger pull, to make the machine (the gun) function as good as it can. And I say a good trigger that is SMOOTH,, vs a hard to pull one will make that easier to learn. Using poundage as a measurement of a trigger is an acceptable method of expression. But I have guns, with triggers that when "weighed" come out heavier than many THINK they are because they are so smooth. Smooth, clean, crisp triggers are one of the most important thing to good accurate shooting. But you also need a shooter who knows how to operate one as well.

[Larry Gibson]

..........Robbie Leatham,, doesn't ALWAYS use his sights. He has such well trained abilities,,, that SOMETIMES,, his "instincts" allow him to shoot accurately w/o the sights. And yes,, his stressing the trigger control is spot on.......

My bad, should have said "aims" instead of using the sights. Point shooting or "instinct shooting" w/o use of the sights is, in fact, a form of aiming. In the video it is "aiming" that Leatham says is "useless" until one learns to properly pull the trigger.

[Larry Gibson]

It's probably safe to say that of the next 100 shots fired by police officers in the line of duty, fewer than 50 will hit the intended target. While the gun and ammunition may be capable of 5 inch groups, for a shooter under "combat" conditions, 5 foot groups are probably more likely.

Having never pulled a trigger in fear or anger, I'm not prepared to blame that entirely on bad marksmanship or bad training.

It is more likely fewer than 25 out of that 100 shots will hit the intended target, probably a lot fewer.

Having been an Advanced Firearms Instructor for a state Board of Police Standards and Training and having instructed on many police ranges I can attest to the fact that most LE officers may have been adequately trained in marksmanship initially, the retention of that ability erodes quickly due to bad continued training at maintaining that skill. It is not the fault of the officer most often.

Also, having spent many years in the Army training Solders and other service personnel of our country and many other countries I can also attest to the lack of initial training and also proficiency training. Read that as "bad marksmanship and bad training" along with a lack of weapons craft training. Proper training leads to a soldier/LE or whoever's confidence their own ability. That leads to a control of fear, execution of proper actions including marksmanship "under fire" so to speak.

Yes, I have pulled a trigger many times "in anger" [not really the term I would use but it's meaning is understood by most]. As to "fear"? I was always scared but the training always allowed control of that fear. I am prepared to blame the lack of hits on target in "combat", "line of duty" or any lethal situation on bad marksmanship and bad weapons craft on bad training.... because that is what it is.....I have seen it too many times all over the world to make any excuses for it.