Accuracy testing standards?

[Murphy]

I've been giving some thought to handgun accuracy these past few months, actually many years before now.

The "Standard" test for accuracy was done at 25 yards back in the late 70's when I began handloading. If I recall correctly, any brand name decent gun was expected to shoot a 3" group at 25 yards. It seems that standard has fallen by the wayside. I'll head over to Youtube to watch reviews about various handguns. Once the smoke has cleared, it seems 7 yards is about the limit for the majority of those testing some of the newer handguns. If it will hold a group of less than 2-2.5"s it's deemed awesome. Okay, I get it. The vast majority of those doing the testing never plan on having to shoot it past that distance, even if it's a full sized 1911 or 4" revolver. My 69 year old eyes (with corrective lens) won't allow me to do that even off sandbags these days. I do realize many carry the smaller concealable various 9's and 380 Autos with 3" barrels.

So, what is your acceptable accuracy standard for your CCW handgun? I am fully aware that most self defense encounters take place from point blank point of contact out to around 20 feet. But, there's always exceptions and no guarantees it will.


Murphy

[Outpost75]

One inch per ten yards for six shots sand bagged with service ammunition has been an acceptance standard for revolvers since black powder days. Still works.

When I was at Ruger in the 1980s police revolvers were targeted at 20 yards taking a 6:00 hold on a 2" aiming black. A 3" circle was printed tangent at 6:00 to the aiming circle. All six shot had to strike within the 3" circle with at least 3 shots of six either in or cutting the 2-in h aiming point with .38. Special +P or .357.

[megasupermagnum]

I won't carry a handgun that isn't effective at 50 yards. I'm willing to allow leeway with my fixed sight LCR for convenience, but anything else has real sights, and will shoot under 6" at 50 yards. 3 of them shoot 3"-4" at 50 yards. That's as a 25 shot average. You will never get that accuracy back from practice, either your handgun can mechanically do it, or it can't. I've never drawn my carry gun in self defense. I've drawn it a number of times on animals, and except for a single deer I shot at like 10 yards, every other animal I can think of was over 30 yards. That includes a raccoon I shot at something like 65 yards. Carrying a fullsize handgun like a 1911 that can't do that is bizzare.

[dverna]

Like in everything else, you are witnessing the dumbing down of things.

But CCW is one area where it might be OK.

IMO 3” at 25 yards off a rest is more than adequate. I doubt many people can hold 6” groups at 25 yards from what I have observed at public ranges.

When I took the 4 day course at Frontsight, the longest ranges were 15 yards IIRC.

Oid guys like me grew up shooting NRA Bullseye so using iron sights at 50 yards was no big deal. IIRC the 10 ring was 3.3”, and you had it to hit it most of time shooting one handed to win a trinket. At 25 yards, you had to hit it almost all the time shooting timed and rapid fire. Mall ninja’s have no clue how to shoot.

[FergusonTO35]

The mass acceptance of CCW has really changed things, in most ways for the better. For example, autoloaders are way more dependable now than they used to be because they are expected to eat a variety of ammo and function under adverse conditions. I've been shooting and hunting for almost 40 years and I accept the fact that I'll never be a traditional bullseye shooter, I'm just not made to do it. I practice with my handguns at 7-15 yards because that is where I can be effective with them.

[shooting on a shoestring]

For clarity, and to satisfy my sense of perfectness, you’re mixing 2 concepts. Precision is a measure of how small your group is. Accuracy is how far the group is from the bullseye (sight adjustment). Or another definition of accuracy is “can you hit it?”

Your question is a good one. My answer is…..it varies.

I think of my carry guns in two groups. Long range and oh damn!

Long range for me means length of grocery store isle, other side of restaurant, mall food court or parking lot distances. For that I want a gun and load that has precision good enough for me to see 2-3” bench rested 25 yard groups. And standing with 2-hand grip, hit copy paper at 25 yds. (That’s precision 2-3” groups and accuracy, more to do with my ability, hitting copy paper at 25 yards). For me it’s a big gun. 4” or longer revolver, 5” 1911 and rarely a striker fired polymer. That’s a shoulder holster piece. Shoulder holster means really slow draw from inside of shirt.

Oh damn! distance is meth-head jumping out from behind gas pump (happened to me once, didn’t have to shoot) and similar. For those I’d be firing from a retention stance with the gun belly button high tight by my side. Precision, not useful. Small gun drawn fast, essential. The old man habit of keeping hand in britches pocket…around a LCR, LCP, P365, Micro 380 etc… is a good habit. Handy at times.

[Thumbcocker]

Even back in the day the writer would fudge some. One code phrase was that the gun displayed "acceptable combat accuracy" without listing group size.

In our current reality people are buying guns for shooting at other people due to fear mongering by all sides. The number of folks buying guns because they are interesting machine with a fascinating history is a tiny fraction of the market. Gunfights and bear attacks rule.

Manufacturers can sell any polymer framed striker fired turd that will stay on a silhouette target at 7 yards to people who have no idea of a handguns potential for entertainment, feeding you, and just enjoyable time shooting. The gun market has been saturated for decades the only thing keeping manufacturers going is the self defense market and trying to convince shooters that the newest cartridge / gun combo is light years better that tried and proven designs.

[Don Purcell]

This! The spray and pray method on t.v. and movies has taken over from accurate but it is all for the excitement factor. Body a police shootings show the same thing, quantity of shots over accuracy of shots. The old saw of every round has to be accounted for seems to have fallen by the wayside.

[rintinglen]

Put me in the traditionalist school. When I read some gun writer crowing over the excellent groups he's getting at 7 yards, my eyes roll and I discount everything he has to say. Call me outdated, but I have spent a fair bit of time and ammo testing my carry guns. If it won't hold the nine ring at 25 yards, two-hands, off-hand, it doesn't cut the mustard. A full size handgun should group a cylinder or magazine in <3" off sandbags at 25 yards to be acceptable. A compact gun should run no more than 5" at the same distance.

It drives me nuts when I read or hear someone say, "Oh all I care about is something to just get him off me." Like we can predict where or when we will have to engage. The criminal chooses. Now if he is planning to rob you, he'll get close. But if he is just some kookoo clock, raised on "Call of Duty," looking to run up a body count he may be some distance away. You need to be able to respond appropriately. If your gun won't hold 3" at 25 yards from the bench, no matter your level of skill, you won't either.

[Rapier]

A shooter, under stress without practice, makes mistakes. A mistake in a paper shooting type match means you do not win. In a gun fight there is no second or third place. Folks simply do not get that.....
If I had a dollar for every FOP participant that said I never intend to use my gun, when asked why they do not practice, I would have a stack of money. My stock response was, you might need to use your gun to save a life.

[Larry Gibson]

I recently acquired two handgun rests; a Lee precision Rest and a Ransom rest. After properly mounting them (per the Ransom Rest instructions) I did some testing at 50 yards with both using my old service 5" S&W M15 38 SPL and my Contender. The M15 has always been a very accurate revolver for me. I was testing the M15 in the Lee Rest with some of my "standard" 38 SPL loads; a Lee 158 TL over 3.5 gr of Bullseye with the bullets just visually inspected and all loaded on a Dillon SDB. I can bounce a pop can around all day long out to 25 yards with that load. At 50 yards I was getting 4 - 6" 12 shot groups. I also tried Speer's 158 LSWC and it gave the same 4 - 6" twelve shot groups. I then though I must be doing something wrong with the rest but decided to try some old Remington Target Master WCs I had left over from my PPC days back in the late '70s. The 12 rounds of the Remington went into a noce group 1.95" wide and just over 3" tall......hmmmmmm.

I next tried the Contender in the Ransom Rest with both my own "standard" load and the Speer's. Ten shot groups at 50 yards with both ran 4 - 5". I then ran a test with some Underwood factory +P loads. Both types of those 38 SPL +P loads (one hard cast and one with soft cast HP bullets) gave 2" +/- ten shot groups. I also tried a 10 shot group of my FBI 38 SPL load which is a soft cast (40-1 alloy) 358156 GC'd and HP'd over 5.5 gr of Unique. Those went int a 2.5" group.

That gave me a good idea of the "precision" capability of the ammunition tested.

Appears I need to work on the quality of bullets used in my "standard" load........

[contender1]

Outpost75 has given a stated measurement. It's one I heard LONG ago, (decades,) and still adhere to.

CCW,, and 7 yards is a joke of a way of measurement. If you are that close, or closer,, there WILL be stress and activity that can & will interfere with precision. (I know,, my Mother was pepper sprayed & attacked in her store about 20 years ago.) Using a gun, if you can get it out & are capable of making it go bang,, you will want all the quality & accuracy you can get from a mechanical object,, (your gun.)

I think it was Col. Townsen Wheelen who said; "Only accurate rifles are interesting." (Forgive me if I'm wrong.) But to paraphrase that,, "Only accurate GUNS are interesting. And accuracy is a subjective thing to many. I prefer my handguns to be accurate at 25 yds as a STARTING point. I shoot handguns to 100 yds often (max distance at my range,) and much further whenever I can. I'm also a realist, in that I also shoot in USPSA competition. That's a game that adds stresses to a shooter, AND requires accuracy.

Sadly,, as noted in many posts above,, too many people fail to understand what it takes to be an accurate shooter. To make up for poor performance,, many shorten the distance to a target to get to an "acceptable" accuracy for their purposes.

[garywg]

This guy says it well.

[dtknowles]

Testing a CCW off sandbags is not all that useful. The major factor is going to be the shooter. Even with my best target handgun I can't hold 2" groups offhand at 25 yards. In self-defense not every shot has to count, you are going to be firing more than one shot. Offhand (standing, no rest) 10 shots to clean an 8" plate rack of 6 plates at 25 yards seems more than good enough.

If you can't do that maybe you need to drop down to some sandbags and shoot some groups to find out what's the problem. Could be the gun, the ammo or the shooter. If you can't clean the plate rack with a quality full-size handgun your not going to do better with a CCW.

At 7 yards every shot should be in the kill zone on a lifesize target, better yet every shot should be in the head shot kill zone. What is the saying one in the head and two in the chest.

I think it is a given that some accuracy is given up when you have to conceal the weapon (CCW has shorter sight radius, poor sights, short barrel, more recoil.) I would expect better accuracy for an open carry full size handgun. It should never miss an 8" plate at 25 yards. Should shoot 2" groups at 25 yards off a rest.

Tim

[megasupermagnum]

Testing a CCW off sandbags is not all that useful. The major factor is going to be the shooter. Even with my best target handgun I can't hold 2" groups offhand at 25 yards. In self-defense not every shot has to count, you are going to be firing more than one shot. Offhand (standing, no rest) 10 shots to clean an 8" plate rack of 6 plates at 25 yards seems more than good enough.

If you can't do that maybe you need to drop down to some sandbags and shoot some groups to find out what's the problem. Could be the gun, the ammo or the shooter. If you can't clean the plate rack with a quality full-size handgun your not going to do better with a CCW.

At 7 yards every shot should be in the kill zone on a lifesize target, better yet every shot should be in the head shot kill zone. What is the saying one in the head and two in the chest.

I think it is a given that some accuracy is given up when you have to conceal the weapon (CCW has shorter sight radius, poor sights, short barrel, more recoil.) I would expect better accuracy for an open carry full size handgun. It should never miss an 8" plate at 25 yards. Should shoot 2" groups at 25 yards off a rest.

Tim

I think the point he was trying to make is these accuracy "tests" today are pointless. There are tons of guns out there today meant for concealed carry that can't make effective hits at 50 yards from a ransom rest. There's plenty that you would have to be 100% on the ball just to hit a man sized target at 25 yards. At 7 yards, what difference does it make? At 7 yards, a world class 1911 is pretty much the same as a dirt cheap Mossberg MC2. Practicing shooting at 7 yards is fine. Testing accuracy at 7 yards is asinine. You could have a smooth bore shooting a rock, and it would be pretty accurate at 7 yards. Either test the accuracy potential, or don't. Publishing 7 yard accuracy "tests", or saying "combat accurate" is not acceptable. Rant over.

While practice is always the key, if you are shooting a Hipoint C9 that off sandbags you can shoot 6" at 25 yard groups, no amount of practice will ever allow you to make hits at 50 yards, and you probably won't be very good at 25 either, mechanically it just isn't there. I honestly have no idea how accurate a Hipoint can be, so sorry if yours is much better. I have no way of knowing how accurate they can be because no magazine or article will do such a test, likely because it wouldn't be impressive.

[44MAG#1]

The weakest link in accuracy is the shooter. Work on the weakest link first before getting an ulcer over the gun.
After many, many, many, many years as a member at a shooting range and 2 or 3 at another range also plus shooting at indoor ranges I can say WITHOUT a doubt that few handgun shooters are actually good shots.
Of course if anyone calls hitting a paper plate offhand at 25 yards good than there is something lacking in judgement.

[dtknowles]

The weakest link in accuracy is the shooter. Work on the weakest link first before getting an ulcer over the gun.
After many, many, many, many years as a member at a shooting range and 2 or 3 at another range also plus shooting at indoor ranges I can say WITHOUT a doubt that few handgun shooters are actually good shots.
Of course if anyone calls hitting a paper plate offhand at 25 yards good than there is something lacking in judgement.

Hitting a paper plate every time at 25 yards, offhand with an issued (police or military) type handgun might not be good but it is in my mind adequate for self-defense. Doing it with a snubby or a shrunk down semi-auto I think is kind of impressive.
Tim

[44MAG#1]

Hitting a paper plate every time at 25 yards, offhand with an issued (police or military) type handgun might not be good but it is in my mind adequate for self-defense. Doing it with a snubby or a shrunk down semi-auto I think is kind of impressive.
Tim

I was talking about slow fire deliberate shooting. Even doing that very, very, very few are good shooters. Regardless of the handgun size or calibers. Handguns made by the Malleable Parts and Thrown Together Company may be a different story.

[dverna]

I recently acquired two handgun rests; a Lee precision Rest and a Ransom rest. After properly mounting them (per the Ransom Rest instructions) I did some testing at 50 yards with both using my old service 5" S&W M15 38 SPL and my Contender. The M15 has always been a very accurate revolver for me. I was testing the M15 in the Lee Rest with some of my "standard" 38 SPL loads; a Lee 158 TL over 3.5 gr of Bullseye with the bullets just visually inspected and all loaded on a Dillon SDB. I can bounce a pop can around all day long out to 25 yards with that load. At 50 yards I was getting 4 - 6" 12 shot groups. I also tried Speer's 158 LSWC and it gave the same 4 - 6" twelve shot groups. I then though I must be doing something wrong with the rest but decided to try some old Remington Target Master WCs I had left over from my PPC days back in the late '70s. The 12 rounds of the Remington went into a noce group 1.95" wide and just over 3" tall......hmmmmmm.

I next tried the Contender in the Ransom Rest with both my own "standard" load and the Speer's. Ten shot groups at 50 yards with both ran 4 - 5". I then ran a test with some Underwood factory +P loads. Both types of those 38 SPL +P loads (one hard cast and one with soft cast HP bullets) gave 2" +/- ten shot groups. I also tried a 10 shot group of my FBI 38 SPL load which is a soft cast (40-1 alloy) 358156 GC'd and HP'd over 5.5 gr of Unique. Those went int a 2.5" group.

That gave me a good idea of the "precision" capability of the ammunition tested.

Appears I need to work on the quality of bullets used in my "standard" load........

Interesting. I would have expected the Contender to do better.

Makes me wonder if the Ransom Rest is anchored well enough. At the range we used for testing, we had a cement pier sunk into the ground as the platform for the RR.

[Good Cheer]

The hand cannon can canon works for me.
If I hit the bouncing can I'm OK.
I'm partial to the .40 caliber.
https://i.imgur.com/IVn5fpw.jpg

[Bigslug]

Frankly, I read a lot of those same 25 yard accuracy test charts in the '80's and got rather bored with them (and with the magazines in general), as there didn't seem to be much out there that wouldn't hold 4" or better at that range. . .from sandbags. . .in broad daylight. . .with the songbirds singing peacefully in the distance.

That pretty much told me that inside of 20 feet. . .unsupported. . .in the dark. . .with someone trying to kill you, we should be a lot more concerned with "DOES THE DAMN THING WORK???"

One of my prized articles is a 1944-produced 1911-A1 that has all of it's original parts, but is in "this has DEFINITELY seen combat" condition - rattly tolerances, frosty bore, dented rear sight, only about 30% of its Parkerizing left. . .and it will hold a magazine's worth of hardball on a golf ball at ten yards. With that as a yardstick, I lose zero sleep thinking about the ability of a new, CNC-made, Browning-based design - probably with fewer parts - to do as well or better. With very rare exceptions, they all shoot better than we can shoot them.

[Larry Gibson]

Interesting. I would have expected the Contender to do better.

Makes me wonder if the Ransom Rest is anchored well enough. At the range we used for testing, we had a cement pier sunk into the ground as the platform for the RR.

The RR was well anchored to a solid cement bent.....no movement. Out of the Contender 10 shots in 2" +/- at 50 yards with +P ammunition pushing 1300+ fp is pretty darned good IMHO. So was 12 shots of the factory WC out of the S&W M15 at 50 yards. Back in the day when I was shooting PPC the best of tested PPC revolvers ran 1 1/2 - 2" at 50 yards with the same ammo.

[FergusonTO35]

Frankly, I read a lot of those same 25 yard accuracy test charts in the '80's and got rather bored with them (and with the magazines in general), as there didn't seem to be much out there that wouldn't hold 4" or better at that range. . .from sandbags. . .in broad daylight. . .with the songbirds singing peacefully in the distance.

That pretty much told me that inside of 20 feet. . .unsupported. . .in the dark. . .with someone trying to kill you, we should be a lot more concerned with "DOES THE DAMN THING WORK???"

One of my prized articles is a 1944-produced 1911-A1 that has all of it's original parts, but is in "this has DEFINITELY seen combat" condition - rattly tolerances, frosty bore, dented rear sight, only about 30% of its Parkerizing left. . .and it will hold a magazine's worth of hardball on a golf ball at ten yards. With that as a yardstick, I lose zero sleep thinking about the ability of a new, CNC-made, Browning-based design - probably with fewer parts - to do as well or better. With very rare exceptions, they all shoot better than we can shoot them.

This 100%. I gave one of my Glock 42's some exercise this morning. At 10 yards I was easily making knothole groups right where I wanted 'em with all rounds in the mag. Repeatable, over and over no sweat. Hands down, the 42 is my favorite pistol to carry because it just friggin' works for me. I don't care about the "weak" cartridge, relatively low capacity, or lack of a laser/red dot/RMR/whatever is in vogue these days. It does what I need and want it to do and I'm sticking with it.

[JoeJames]

I noticed in this month's American Rifleman where the Dope Bag tested a Korth revolver with, I think, a 2 3/4" barrel. The person testing it stated that their usual protocol for testing a revolver with a barrel that short was at 7 yards - but in the case of the Korth "that would have been cheating" so he tested it at 15 yards. I did not realize that the normal Dope Bag protocol was 7 yards. To me that is awful short.

[44MAG#1]

I noticed in this month's American Rifleman where the Dope Bag tested a Korth revolver with, I think, a 2 3/4" barrel. The person testing it stated that their usual protocol for testing a revolver with a barrel that short was at 7 yards - but in the case of the Korth "that would have been cheating" so he tested it at 15 yards. I did not realize that the normal Dope Bag protocol was 7 yards. To me that is awful short.

That is because everyone knows a person can't hit anything with a short barreled handgun.
That is the reason for 7 yards.

[rintinglen]

Jeff Cooper once opined that a good service gun should shoot three inches or less at 25 meters, but even a gun that only shoots 6 inch groups can still save your life. But better is better. If you know your gun can hit a 3 inch circle every time at 25 yards, it gives you confidence and gives you a standard to work towards. When you can shoot the gun as good as it can shoot, you know your skill set is as good as it can be. If you can't, you know you have some work to do.

[Hiright]

Any gun I buy, I will test from bags at 25yds for accuracy. If it (or me) cannot shoot some type of ammo into 2.5" at that distance, it's going to be sent to the factory or traded away. I went through a few 2.5-3" revolvers before I found one that would do that consistently - Ruger Alaskan .44. The same for any semi autos. I want to know the intrinsic accuracy of a handgun before I begin shooting it offhand. When I see the chart that says "from bags at 7 yards" I shake my head. Yes, the standard used to be 25 yards but I rarely see that these days. Maybe it's followed quality control.

[Good Cheer]

That is because everyone knows a person can't hit anything with a short barreled handgun.
That is the reason for 7 yards.

Except women that bounce cans across the yard with airweight snub noses.
Do they even use the sights?

[44MAG#1]

Except women that bounce cans across the yard with airweight snub noses.
Do they even use the sights?

Well, do they?
Maybe they stand on one leg, spin like a top and hold the gun sideways and hoop and holler. While yanking the trigger.

[Outpost75]

That is because everyone knows a person can't hit anything with a short barreled handgun.
That is the reason for 7 yards.

When I was on the NRA.Tech Staff prior to my going to Ruger in June 1984 25 yards was the standard test distance for handguns. George Martin, who was brought in from Petersen Publishing (Gun & Ammo) loosened the criteria to please advertisers. The rest is history.

Barf.....

[Thumbcocker]

Fwiw in Handloader this month Brian Pearce tested a Rock Island 1911 in 9mm. He got several under 2" at 25 yards. 5 shot groups. In the same issue another author seemed to be over the moon about a one hole 25 yard group from a 92 Winchester .44-40 at 25 yards. Same author talked about the 1858 Springfield using a "patched ball".

[billmc2]

This is a serious question, because I just don't know and I'm trying to learn without a teacher. It has only been in the past couple of years that I now have a place to shoot. Behind my house I can go to 50 yards. Next door, at my neighbor's place we can go out a couple of hundred yards (haven't measured it out yet). Plan on shooting hand guns on mine and rifles on his.

When you guys are talking about off hand shooting, with the groups sizes being discussed, at 25 yards, is this slow fire? Taking time to line up the sights on the bullseye for each shot, or are you shooting as fast as you can get a decent sight picture back?

I've never tried to test the precision of my handguns before. All I've known is what is written recently. I can say a couple of years back, I looked into getting a non resident carry permit for the State of RI. They required the qualification to be shot at 75 feet.

[megasupermagnum]

This is a serious question, because I just don't know and I'm trying to learn without a teacher. It has only been in the past couple of years that I now have a place to shoot. Behind my house I can go to 50 yards. Next door, at my neighbor's place we can go out a couple of hundred yards (haven't measured it out yet). Plan on shooting hand guns on mine and rifles on his.

When you guys are talking about off hand shooting, with the groups sizes being discussed, at 25 yards, is this slow fire? Taking time to line up the sights on the bullseye for each shot, or are you shooting as fast as you can get a decent sight picture back?

I've never tried to test the precision of my handguns before. All I've known is what is written recently. I can say a couple of years back, I looked into getting a non resident carry permit for the State of RI. They required the qualification to be shot at 75 feet.

There's a lot of things talked about on this forum. Originally it was about accuracy testing of handguns, which is done from a bench from either a solid rest or something like a ransom rest. When it comes to offhand, and speed, there's infinite possibilities. You will never be more accurate than the mechanical abilities of your handgun, but beginners are usually doing pretty good to keep shots on paper at 10 yards slow fire. You have to start somewhere. Some of us only carry concealed for defensive purposes, some of us only carry open for hunting purposes, most somewhere in between. The skillset of a hunter and CCW holder are two different things.

As for the CCW qualification, they are meant to be easy. It would be really dumb to require classes that fail students. They are structured so that someone who has only basic safety training can pass.

[pettypace]

This is a serious question, because I just don't know and I'm trying to learn without a teacher. It has only been in the past couple of years that I now have a place to shoot. Behind my house I can go to 50 yards. Next door, at my neighbor's place we can go out a couple of hundred yards (haven't measured it out yet). Plan on shooting hand guns on mine and rifles on his.

When you guys are talking about off hand shooting, with the groups sizes being discussed, at 25 yards, is this slow fire? Taking time to line up the sights on the bullseye for each shot, or are you shooting as fast as you can get a decent sight picture back?

I've never tried to test the precision of my handguns before. All I've known is what is written recently. I can say a couple of years back, I looked into getting a non resident carry permit for the State of RI. They required the qualification to be shot at 75 feet.

I can recommend a tutor. Well, not exactly a tutor, but a textbook: The Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers by (then) Major Julian Hatcher. You can get a spiffy new paperback copy from Amazon in short time for short money. And there are probably a half dozen hardcover reprints on ebay at any given time.

Here's some of what Hatcher writes about testing handguns for accuracy:

"At Springfield Armory the thousands of automatic pistols specially selected for use at the National Matches are targeted by the use of an improvised rest made by taking a step ladder of the right height to support the forearm of the targeter, and fastening to the top of it a board with a V-shaped notch cut in it. This piece of board is adjustable up and down by means of a thumb-screw. This notched board is adjusted so that when the targeter's forearm rests on top of the step-ladder, the V-shaped notch will support the pistol by the receiver just forward of the trigger guard. This "receiver and forearm rest" is perhaps the most satisfactory method of testing heavy caliber revolvers for accuracy."

http://rewebster.org/pics/receiver_forearm_rest.jpg

If the "receiver and forearm rest" was good enough for selecting National Match .45's at Springfield Armory in Hatcher's day, it ought to be useful on your 50 yard pistol range today. And don't hesitate to bring it over to your neighbor's 200 yard rifle range. If he's shooting his rifle off-hand, a good handgun and that rest, might win you a case of beer.

[44MAG#1]

This is a serious question, because I just don't know and I'm trying to learn without a teacher. It has only been in the past couple of years that I now have a place to shoot. Behind my house I can go to 50 yards. Next door, at my neighbor's place we can go out a couple of hundred yards (haven't measured it out yet). Plan on shooting hand guns on mine and rifles on his.

When you guys are talking about off hand shooting, with the groups sizes being discussed, at 25 yards, is this slow fire? Taking time to line up the sights on the bullseye for each shot, or are you shooting as fast as you can get a decent sight picture back?

I've never tried to test the precision of my handguns before. All I've known is what is written recently. I can say a couple of years back, I looked into getting a non resident carry permit for the State of RI. They required the qualification to be shot at 75 feet.

I will say this. You will get many answers from those who own very, very, few handguns and who shoots very, very, very little to those who own more handguns than the US Army and who shoots more than the all the US Military put together and who own very, very little equipment to those who owns thousands and thousands of dollars worth of equipment.
Now with that said. I don't shoot much now and getting old has hampered my ability
If anyone thinks shooting 5, 6, 8 inch groups offhand standing using a two hand hold shooting slow fire at 25 yards is good, they need to seriously rethink their belief.
Keeping in mind everyone, including the "Pro's" , make a boo boo shot occasionally.
Now you will hear of and see occasionally a picture of some fantastic groups fired offhand standing that will amaze you. Remember those groups more than likely don't represent the shooters true ability. It is a representation that they had a lucky wallet group or it is one group they have fired out of many, many, many, many groups.
The more groups, targets you fire the more likely you will have a lucky accident.
Don't think the lucky accident defines your ability
BTW I FORGOT THIS. Don't think your ability off a benchrest defines your offhand ability. It doesn't. One may want to think that to salve his ego when ego has nothing to do with one offhand ability.
I've seen that happen too at the range and one was a late shooting buddy. Excellent benchrest shooter with a handgun but couldn't hit a bull in the behind standing offhand.

[Thumbcocker]

This is a serious question, because I just don't know and I'm trying to learn without a teacher. It has only been in the past couple of years that I now have a place to shoot. Behind my house I can go to 50 yards. Next door, at my neighbor's place we can go out a couple of hundred yards (haven't measured it out yet). Plan on shooting hand guns on mine and rifles on his.

When you guys are talking about off hand shooting, with the groups sizes being discussed, at 25 yards, is this slow fire? Taking time to line up the sights on the bullseye for each shot, or are you shooting as fast as you can get a decent sight picture back?

I've never tried to test the precision of my handguns before. All I've known is what is written recently. I can say a couple of years back, I looked into getting a non resident carry permit for the State of RI. They required the qualification to be shot at 75 feet.

I can only speak for myself. I have had no formal training other than what was required for ccw permits and that was decades after I started shooting handguns. I shoot for accuracy period. When I really want to shoot for a group, especially with something that kicks, I will shoot one shot put the gun on the bench and maybe walk around a bit. Then I will pick up the gun, carefully build my stance from foot placement up, build my grip, and shoot another shot. Then repeat the process. It may take 4 or 5 minutes to shoot a cylinder full.

My goal is to hit things. I hunt with handguns. I really like shooting handguns at 100 yards at reactive targets. Mostly clay birds and bottles of water (12 to 20 ounce). If I feel especially masochistic I shoot at gallon jugs at 200 yards. Paper targets are for load testing and development. Paper targets are not your friends. They hate you and they will not lie to you to avoid hurting your feelings. They are necessary for load development.

When shooting at longer distance a spotter is crucial. You will almost certainly loose sight of everything in the recoil and all you should be seeing is the front sight anyway.

With good loads and a good shooting position a handgun can be amazing at distance. When you hit a standard size clay bird at 100 yards from a standing 2 hand hold there is a feeling of accomplishment that is indescribable. It doesn't happen every time but when it does it is worth all the practice and load development. At least for me. I am not a trained competitive shooter, just a guy who loves handguns and seeing what they can do. It has been a fascinating process and I will continue as long as I am able.

[44MAG#1]

Never forget the humbleness of the humble shots.
They are there to "check the ego".

[rintinglen]

I will say this. You will get many answers from those who own very, very, few handguns and who shoots very, very, very little to those who own more handguns than the US Army and who shoots more than the all the US Military put together and who own very, very little equipment to those who owns thousands and thousands of dollars worth of equipment.
Now with that said. I don't shoot much now and getting old has hampered my ability
If anyone thinks shooting 5, 6, 8 inch groups offhand standing using a two hand hold shooting slow fire at 25 yards is good, they need to seriously rethink their belief.
Keeping in mind everyone, including the "Pro's" , make a boo boo shot occasionally.
Now you will hear of and see occasionally a picture of some fantastic groups fired offhand standing that will amaze you. Remember those groups more than likely don't represent the shooters true ability. It is a representation that they had a lucky wallet group or it is one group they have fired out of many, many, many, many groups.
The more groups, targets you fire the more likely you will have a lucky accident.
Don't think the lucky accident defines your ability

True words, these.

The actual test of your ability is not what you might hit, it is what you can't miss.

[El Bibliotecario]

I am happy if I can score 100 with ten shots at an NRA 25 yard timed and rapid fire target--using deliberate slow fire from a Weaver stance, shooting at 25 yards distance. The ten ring is 3 1/2 " in diameter; since I count 'scratch' hits as is the custom in competition, 4" diameter would be a more realistic figure. I use this standard because its the best I can shoot. My other standard is highly scientific--at 25 yards, can I hit a 24 oz tin can with most of my shots?

[contender1]

"This is a serious question, because I just don't know and I'm trying to learn without a teacher. It has only been in the past couple of years that I now have a place to shoot. Behind my house I can go to 50 yards. Next door, at my neighbor's place we can go out a couple of hundred yards (haven't measured it out yet). Plan on shooting hand guns on mine and rifles on his.

When you guys are talking about off hand shooting, with the groups sizes being discussed, at 25 yards, is this slow fire? Taking time to line up the sights on the bullseye for each shot, or are you shooting as fast as you can get a decent sight picture back?

I've never tried to test the precision of my handguns before. All I've known is what is written recently. I can say a couple of years back, I looked into getting a non resident carry permit for the State of RI. They required the qualification to be shot at 75 feet. "

Decades ago,, when I took up handgun shooting,, I too had no mentor, or formal instruction. Of course,, there was no internet, or other immediate help. Books were around,, but often,, a bit confusing.
As such,, I developed some bad habits, & incorrect methods of handgun shooting that caused my abilities to suffer.

First off, if at all possible,, find a mentor or even pay a well known handgun instructor to at least teach you the PROPER basics of grip, stance, sight alignment, sight focus, trigger pull, follow-through, etc. It will be MUCH better than trying to break an ingrained, motor-memory skill that's incorrect.

That said, let's address your questions.
Group sizes. Normally they are measured at a specific distance, (say 25 yds) in both offhand & from a bench. Both techniques to properly do this are different. But they give you an idea of your potential & the gun's potential. And yes,, they are both carefully done in a slower, deliberate method. Speed is not your friend.

Action handgun shooters in a competition such as USPSA look at the fact that their scores are partially based upon speed. Scores are based upon speed AND accuracy. But the distances they most often shoot, combined with the size of the "A" zone scoring area can make for somewhat easier shooting than trying to get a tight group on a bullseye. But even in USPSA,, "Spray & pray" at top speed will not win.

So, by far,, I'd seriously suggest you look hard at finding an instructor or mentor with the credentials to at least give you the proper basics of how to shoot a handgun.

[44MAG#1]

Decades ago,, when I took up handgun shooting,, I too had no mentor, or formal instruction. Of course,, there was no internet, or other immediate help. Books were around,, but often,, a bit confusing.
As such,, I developed some bad habits, & incorrect methods of handgun shooting that caused my abilities to suffer.

First off, if at all possible,, find a mentor or even pay a well known handgun instructor to at least teach you the PROPER basics of grip, stance, sight alignment, sight focus, trigger pull, follow-through, etc. It will be MUCH better than trying to break an ingrained, motor-memory skill that's incorrect.

That said, let's address your questions.
Group sizes. Normally they are measured at a specific distance, (say 25 yds) in both offhand & from a bench. Both techniques to properly do this are different. But they give you an idea of your potential & the gun's potential. And yes,, they are both carefully done in a slower, deliberate method. Speed is not your friend.

Action handgun shooters in a competition such as USPSA look at the fact that their scores are partially based upon speed. Scores are based upon speed AND accuracy. But the distances they most often shoot, combined with the size of the "A" zone scoring area can make for somewhat easier shooting than trying to get a tight group on a bullseye. But even in USPSA,, "Spray & pray" at top speed will not win.

So, by far,, I'd seriously suggest you look hard at finding an instructor or mentor with the credentials to at least give you the proper basics of how to shoot a handgun.

Very good advice. Find someone who is a good shooter who has good high scores or by observing them shoot, you will have to know what good shooting is first to be able to judge that, and get them to coach you.
I will say this that more accuracy is LOST by slouchy trigger control than ANYTHING ELSE.
You can have an accurate gun, accurate ammo, good stance, good grip etc. etc. etc. And ruin it all with IMPROPER TRIGGER CONTROL.
If you remember anything from all this is to remember IMPROPER TRIGGER CONTROL can and will ruin it all

[pettypace]

You can have an accurate gun, accurate ammo, good stance, good grip etc. etc. etc. And ruin it all with IMPROPER TRIGGER CONTROL.

AIMING IS USELESS! 3 Secrets To Great Shooting | Rob Leatham 6x IPSC World Champion! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0rGtXh23I)

[44MAG#1]

AIMING IS USELESS! 3 Secrets To Great Shooting | Rob Leatham 6x IPSC World Champion! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0rGtXh23I)

At across the room distances I agree.
Try that at 50 or 100 yards and see the results.
Just looking over the sights at 3, 5,7, 12 yards is enough to hit the BG. Try that at 25 yards on a 25 yard NRA slow fire target or a 50 yard slow fire NRA target.

[El Bibliotecario]

AIMING IS USELESS! 3 Secrets To Great Shooting | Rob Leatham 6x IPSC World Champion! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0rGtXh23I)

I don't even want to imagine what his bathroom must look like.

Seriously, that depends on what one is doing. For IPSC shooting, it obviously works well. Its been my observation that shooters who excel in rapid shot placement at close range often suffer a degradation of accuracy at 25 yards.

[dtknowles]

I will say this........If anyone thinks shooting 5, 6, 8 inch groups offhand standing using a two hand hold shooting slow fire at 25 yards is good......

I think shooting consistent 5 inch groups offhand at 25 yards with a handgun that shoots consistent 3 inch groups off a rest at 25 yards is good. You are not going to be better than the gun and ammo. I don't see many people at the range doing better than that.

I don't shoot groups offhand, offhand I shoot targets, either steel plates, combat silhouettes or bullseyes. I don't measure groups I total the scores. A plate is either down or it is not. Combat it is either in the kill zone or it is not. On bullseyes, hopefully it is 9s, 10s or X's. On a bullseye, a nice 1 inch group out at the 7 and 8 ring is horrible. A 3 inch group centered on the x is much better. I know that I am not good, but I am the best among my peers at the range. When I shoot my Ruger MKII offhand I put one of those shoot and see, 3 inch bullseyes out at 25 yards and try to keep all 10 shots on the bull. I always miss at least 1 but often the group is smaller than 3 inches just not perfectly centered. At least 2 of the 3 inches of dispersion is me, the gun shoots under an inch at 25 yards with almost any ammo.
I think what you consider good on a lame, acceptable, good, better, best, scale is more in the range of better and best.
Tim

[44MAG#1]

AIM or AIMING: point or direct (a weapon or camera) at a target.
So if he is pointing the gun at the target he is aiming. Maybe not PRECISION aiming but he is aiming.
One could hold the gun sideways style and aim along the slide but it is still aiming or pointing the gun at the target.
I could do that and head shoot a IDPA target at 7 yards.

[44MAG#1]

I think shooting consistent 5 inch groups offhand at 25 yards with a handgun that shoots consistent 3 inch groups off a rest at 25 yards is good. You are not going to be better than the gun and ammo. I don't see many people at the range doing better than that.

I don't shoot groups offhand, offhand I shoot targets, either steel plates, combat silhouettes or bullseyes. I don't measure groups I total the scores. A plate is either down or it is not. Combat it is either in the kill zone or it is not. On bullseyes, hopefully it is 9s, 10s or X's. On a bullseye, a nice 1 inch group out at the 7 and 8 ring is horrible. A 3 inch group centered on the x is much better. I know that I am not good, but I am the best among my peers at the range. When I shoot my Ruger MKII offhand I put one of those shoot and see, 3 inch bullseyes out at 25 yards and try to keep all 10 shots on the bull. I always miss at least 1 but often the group is smaller than 3 inches just not perfectly centered. At least 2 of the 3 inches of dispersion is me, the gun shoots under an inch at 25 yards with almost any ammo.
I think what you consider good on a lame, acceptable, good, better, best, scale is more in the range of better and best.
Tim

If you can't group your shots offhand how can you sight in? If you put up a steel plate and shoot at it 5 or 10 rounds don't you group your shots on the plate?

[dtknowles]

If you can't group your shots offhand how can you sight in? If you put up a steel plate and shoot at it 5 or 10 rounds don't you group your shots on the plate?

The steel plate is plates, a plate rack, 6 plates that fall over when hit. I paint the plates with a fresh coat before the first round so when they are reset you can see the impacts and see if I am trending one way or the other. After a few resets it is hard to keep track of the impacts. I don't wait for a cold range between rounds, the plates can be reset from the firing line.

As far as sighting in. I sight in on sandbags and then make any adjustments needed for offhand base on my judgement of what caused the shots to fall where they do. If I am consistently low or high or right or left I will adjust the sights. Most of my guns have been sighted in for years so I hesitate to make sight adjustments for result offhand as they are probably me pulling or pushing the shot not the sights being the problem. I don't shoot handguns off a rest much these days. My guns are sighted in and my ammo is loaded or the load is already developed. I spend my range time working on my shooting technique. Sight picture, recoil control, trigger control, follow through, recapure and repeat. Right now I have two hand gun shooting interests. First is how fast can I clean the plate rack with my 9mm EAA Witness and how often can I hit the 100 yard steel with my Dan Wesson .357 Max. both offhand. Right now Plates is like 12 seconds and 100 yard steel is about 50%

Tim

[44MAG#1]

The steel plate is plates, a plate rack, 6 plates that fall over when hit. I paint the plates with a fresh coat before the first round so when they are reset you can see the impacts and see if I am trending one way or the other. After a few resets it is hard to keep track of the impacts. I don't wait for a cold range between rounds, the plates can be reset from the firing line.

As far as sighting in. I sight in on sandbags and then make any adjustments needed for offhand base on my judgement of what caused the shots to fall where they do. If I am consistently low or high or right or left I will adjust the sights. Most of my guns have been sighted in for years so I hesitate to make sight adjustments for result offhand as they are probably me pulling or pushing the shot not the sights being the problem. I don't shoot handguns off a rest much these days. My guns are sighted in and my ammo is loaded or the load is already developed. I spend my range time working on my shooting technique. Sight picture, recoil control, trigger control, follow through, recapure and repeat. Right now I have two hand gun shooting interests. First is how fast can I clean the plate rack with my 9mm EAA Witness and how often can I hit the 100 yard steel with my Dan Wesson .357 Max. both offhand. Right now Plates is like 12 seconds and 100 yard steel is about 50%

Tim

So you sight in using a rest then final tweaking offhand. I sight in offhand because I have enough confidence in my shooting to do so.
But I understand each has his own ways.
How big is the 100 yard steel? Do you shoot rapid fire or slow fire at it?
Do you shoot groups off bags while sighting in or just a couple at a time while adjusting the sights?

[Thumbcocker]

Accuracy is a three legged stool. Gun, shooter and load. A poor shooter will not shoot well with a good gun shooting excellent loads.

When you reach the point where you can tell that the gun/load combination are not giving you what you are holding for you have made progress.

Some guns just plain won't shoot. If you have one of those get it fixed or get rid of it. A gun that won't shoot well after a reasonable amount of load development will ruin your confidence.

A gun and load that you know will shoot well makes things simple. All you have to do is shoot up to the gun's capability. And all that takes is consistency. You can be told the basics of stance, grip, sights and trigger in a few minutes. Then spend the rest of your life trying to get it right.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[44MAG#1]

What is the definition of "All you have to do is shoot up to the gun's capability. And all that takes is consistency.".
Do I take that to mean if one has a Bullseye set up 1911 that will shoot consistent 3 inch 10 shot groups at 50 yards from a Ransom Rest that shooter will be able to do that if he does everything correctly eventually?
Would that ever happen?

[dtknowles]

So you sight in using a rest then final tweaking offhand. I sight in offhand because I have enough confidence in my shooting to do so.
But I understand each has his own ways.
How big is the 100 yard steel? Do you shoot rapid fire or slow fire at it?
Do you shoot groups off bags while sighting in or just a couple at a time while adjusting the sights?

The 100 yard steel is about 8 inches wide and 12 inches tall but I have not measured them and they change them from time to time as they get torn up by rifles shooters. They don't have a standard.

I shoot groups when sighting in and doing load development. Usually, chronograph the loads and check for group size looking for the right load. I adjust the sights then so that it shoots to the sights. When I have settled on the load, I will shoot at targets offhand to see if the sights need more adjustment and then I shoot steel. This is sort of hypothetical; the loads are on the shelf and the guns are sighted have been for years. That is for the Witness and the SuperMag. It is different with other guns. The .22's no load development. I don't resight them in on the sandbags when I change ammo or decide to shoot other ammo. Again, last time I touched the sights was years ago. I just shoot them and if they don't seem to be shooting to the sights I adjust them or just hold off. I have some fixed sight guns that I just hold off (Kentucky Windage).
I mostly do what I feel like doing. This is recreation, it is supposed to be fun not stressful.

I also shoot benchrest both jacketed and cast. 6mm PPC and 30 BR. I shoot for score so I adjust the scope every time I shoot them. Sometimes I shoot sighters during a string. Sometimes I adjust the sights for windage and sometimes I hold off. I do shoot groups sometimes especially with cast because I am still trying to improve my ammo precision. Jacketed I am working more on my technique and reading the wind. Tiny things are important when shooting tiny groups.

Tim

[Thumbcocker]

The journey is the destination. The point i was trying to make is that when the shooter knows that they are the weak link it eliminates the other concerns. They stand or fall on their own. It was a bit tounge in cheek.

For example all you have to do to win in NASCAR is go fast and turn left better than the other drivers. Simple right?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[ACC]

I've been giving some thought to handgun accuracy these past few months, actually many years before now.

The "Standard" test for accuracy was done at 25 yards back in the late 70's when I began handloading. If I recall correctly, any brand name decent gun was expected to shoot a 3" group at 25 yards. It seems that standard has fallen by the wayside. I'll head over to Youtube to watch reviews about various handguns. Once the smoke has cleared, it seems 7 yards is about the limit for the majority of those testing some of the newer handguns. If it will hold a group of less than 2-2.5"s it's deemed awesome. Okay, I get it. The vast majority of those doing the testing never plan on having to shoot it past that distance, even if it's a full sized 1911 or 4" revolver. My 69 year old eyes (with corrective lens) won't allow me to do that even off sandbags these days. I do realize many carry the smaller concealable various 9's and 380 Autos with 3" barrels.

So, what is your acceptable accuracy standard for your CCW handgun? I am fully aware that most self defense encounters take place from point blank point of contact out to around 20 feet. But, there's always exceptions and no guarantees it will.


Murphy

All my accuracy tests with hand guns are at 30 meters. Less than 2 inches standing is what I look for.

ACC

[44MAG#1]

All my accuracy tests with hand guns are at 30 meters. Less than 2 inches standing is what I look for.

ACC

That is great shooting. Not many can shoot almost all 10's at the 50 yard line on an NRA 50 yard slow fire target which is your equivalent at 50 yards
Great post.
This is not meant as a snarky post.
Please don't take it that way.

[dtknowles]

All my accuracy tests with hand guns are at 30 meters. Less than 2 inches standing is what I look for.

ACC

What guns do you have that meet your requirements. Will you share maker, caliber and model?

Tim

[pettypace]

... At 50 yards ... some old Remington Target Master WCs I had left over from my PPC days back in the late '70s ... went into a nice group 1.95" wide and just over 3" tall......hmmmmmm.

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

http://rewebster.org/pics/hatcher_accuracy.jpg

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

[44MAG#1]

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

http://rewebster.org/pics/hatcher_accuracy.jpg

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

Wonder how those shooters would have done offhand standing ?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Is there an app/program such as VIRGEL that could be developed that would give us that answer?
Just plug in a few numbers and then look at the results?

[Rich/WIS]

IIRC when I went through training taught by the FBI it was stated that the average range in shooting incidents was 7 yards. Also interesting was how many shots MISSED at that range. To my way of thinking worrying about group size is second to its, and your, ability to hit with your carry gun. Hunting and precision target shooting have the tightest requirements with dinging steel plates somewhere in the middle. Whatever the accuracy requirement the biggest variable is your shooting skill.

[contender1]

The comments about Rob Leatham above are interesting.
I have seen Robbie shoot. And while he holds so many titles & awards that many would be envious of,,, he also admits to doing things a bit differently. BUT,, he can also shoot open sights, at 100 yds, and outshoot most people. He did a show on Shooting Gallery a few years ago, and they had "shoot-offs" where they would all shoot at steel, at a distance. Starting at one distance,, most were able to hit steel on their first shot. Then they would all back up 5 yds or so & start over. If you missed, you were eliminated. It got down to around 100 yds,, and Robbie beat them all.
Robbie has developed his skills, to what works best for HIM. And he too will admit that sights are necessary for accuracy. It depends upon the type of shooting, and the amount of practice & several other factors that affect accuracy. His quote above & his explanation go together,, for SOME types of shooting.
Watch the TV,, when they are advertising Springfield Armory. When they show Robbie shooting, you will see that in slo-mo, he doesn't blink, flinch or anything. Yet,, watch other shooters & you will see blinking, flinching & other things that can & will affect serious accuracy.

Just last night, I was watching TV & I think it was G&A TV, that was highlighting a Springfield 1911 in 45 acp. They actually stated the group size AT 25 YDS. I was expecting them to not list the distance,, or if they did,, it would have been closer.

[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:

http://rewebster.org/pics/hatcher_accuracy.jpg

(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:

http://rewebster.org/pics/45_acp_group.jpg

[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:

http://rewebster.org/pics/45_acp_group.jpg

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.

[FergusonTO35]

As always, Larry brings the knowledge!

[44MAG#1]

As always, Larry brings the knowledge!

That is true.
Every forum is like a ship in the ocean of shooters, plinkers, handloaders, and experimenters, amateur Gunsmiths and gun buyers and amatuer ballistic knowledge slingers.
That ship always need a selfless captain that steers the ship in that ocean.
I listen to him and look at his tests too.
Thanks

[dogdoc]

2 inches or less off a rest at 25 yards for 5 or 6 shots is my standard . Some thing that groups well at 10 yards can spread way out at 25 or more. Even Handloader magazine has been doing accuracy test at 15 yards off a ransom rest no less. A bad joke in my mind.

[Frank V]

I like to shoot a handgun off of sandbags at 25yds I am looking for 2-1/2” @ 25yds with a full size handgun, not a target pistol.

[44MAG#1]

I like to shoot a handgun off of sandbags at 25yds I am looking for 2-1/2” @ 25yds with a full size handgun, not a target pistol.

So in other words you are looking for 9.55 MOA accuracy?

[Outpost75]

So in other words you are looking for 9.55 MOA accuracy?

The black powder era Ordnance Corps acceptance dating from 1887 for the S&W Schofield .45 Single Action being a Mean Diagonal for six shots rested off sandbags not to exceed one inch per ten yards of range. British Army adopted the same standard for the .455 revolver in 1902.

When I was at Ruger in the 1980s Six Series fixed sight .38 and .357 revolvers for the US Army CID, Office of Naval Intelligence, Customs and Border Patrol, State Dept. Security, as well as the India National Police, French Gendamarie Nationale, RCMP, Royal Ulster Constabulary and London Metropolitan Police were all tested to the same standard.

[44MAG#1]

The black powder era Ordnance Corps acceptance for the .45 Single Action Army of Mean Diagonal for six shots rested ofc sandbags not to exceed one inch per ten yards of range. British Army adopted the same standard for the .455 revolver in 1902.

My calculator tells me that is 2.5 inches at 25 yards or 9.55 MOA.

[Outpost75]

My calculator tells me that is 2.5 inches at 25 yards or 9.55 MOA.

So? And your point is????

[44MAG#1]

So? And your point is????

Try to get a clear understanding.
BTW, I am probably mistaken but isn't that 2.7777 Mils?

[Outpost75]

Try to get a clear understanding.
BTW, I am probably mistaken but isn't that 2.7777 Mils?

Have not calculated, but sounds about right. Revolvers generally not a long range weapon so if a trooper could hit an 18 inch barrel head at 100 yards with his Colt single action rested over the the saddle, that was considered OK.

[44MAG#1]

Have not calculated, but sounds about right. Revolvers generally not a long range weapon so if a trooper could hit an 18 inch barrel head at 100 yards with his Colt single action rested over the the saddle, that was considered OK.

17.2 MOA is not so good nowadays.
Especially in IHMSA.
Or by Elmer Keith standards.

[dtknowles]

This, 2 to 3 inches at 25 yards is sort of a proof test to me. If a full-size repeating handgun can't do that with factory ammo it is either flawed or of poor quality or design. You should be easily able to find a handgun that will meet that performance requirement. Yeah, we are talking like 10 moa but we are not talking about accuracy competitions. If we are talking about NRA Bullseye or IHMSA that is a different story and if we are talking single shot handguns again, a different story. Put a scope into the mix and more different. A Contender with a scope should put them all in one hole at 25 yards.
Tim

[44MAG#1]

I don't expect Glocks to shoot accuracy wise as well as a 1911.
Few shooters will notice the difference due to most shooters ability and the type of shooting they do.
BTW I think the shooters that want "real" (see the parentheses", are getting fewer and fewer as time goes on. Just give most a handgun and some ammo and let them blast.
Then pack up and go home and then tell the friends and family how well they shot.

[Thumbcocker]

Yup. And its sad.

[Frank V]

So in other words you are looking for 9.55 MOA accuracy?


A 2-1/2” group if it’s symmetrical, means no shot is farther than 1-1/4” from point of aim. This accuracy has allowed me to take several deer that were 75 to 115 yards from me with an iron sight handgun from a rest.

If 9.55 MOA=100yds would this put each shot about 4-3/8” from point of aim?
I am not arguing, just trying to understand.

[44MAG#1]

A 2-1/2” group if it’s symmetrical, means no shot is farther than 1-1/4” from point of aim. This accuracy has allowed me to take several deer that were 75 to 115 yards from me with an iron sight handgun from a rest.

If 9.55 MOA=100yds would this put each shot about 4-3/8” from point of aim?
I am not arguing, just trying to understand.

9.55MOA equals 9.99 inches so that would make each shot 4.999 inches from point of aim. Or 1. 389 Mil. from point of aim.
BTW, 4.999 inches is 126.985MM or 12.697CM.

[Outpost75]

17.2 MOA is not so good nowadays.
Especially in IHMSA.
Or by Elmer Keith standards.

That represents less than 1% of handgun users. Police, Military and self defense users do not require that level of precision, especially when close tolerances impede reliability under harsh environmental conditions. Gamesmanship and handgun huntimg is mostly ego stimulation, entertainment and mental masturbation.

[44MAG#1]

That represents less than 1% of handgun users. Police, Military and self defense users do not require that level of precision, especially when close tolerances impede reliability under harsh environmental conditions. Gamesmanship and handgun huntimg is mostly ego stimulation, entertainment and mental masturbation.

Tolerances impeding reliability under harsh environmental conditions is never good.
Close tolerances aid accuracy while impeding reliability for sure. I wouldn't want to carry a Bullseye set up 1911 as a carry gun while expecting reliability over a wide spectrum of carry conditions especially the way I eat. It is down the front of my shirt and even in my pockets sometimes. I am sure it gets in my holster sometimes.
While gamesmanship is mostly entertainment and mental masturbation it keeps the mind working and alert on how to come up with newer ways and more training on how to hose down the environment with hot lead.

[Frank V]

Thank you 44MAG#1.

[Outpost75]

@44Mag#1 I am glad that we mostly agree. Please carry on!

[Thumbcocker]

That represents less than 1% of handgun users. Police, Military and self defense users do not require that level of precision, especially when close tolerances impede reliability under harsh environmental conditions. Gamesmanship and handgun huntimg is mostly ego stimulation, entertainment and mental masturbation.

I guess that is what happened day before yesterday when I took a .44 special to the range and shot water bottles and clay birds at 50 and 100 yards. It felt good and no one is going to get pregnant as a result. Maybe I should trade my revolvers in on Glocks and practice shooting at people shaped targets at 5 yards so I could be a real shooter.

[44MAG#1]

That could be like my uncle used to say "measuring someone else's corn in your half bushel".

[hc18flyer]

That could be like my uncle used to say "measuring someone else's corn in your half bushel".

I must be 'slow' today, can you enlighten me? Thanks

[44MAG#1]

I must be 'slow' today, can you enlighten me? Thanks

I'll tell you what. You think on it and let me know what you think it means and I will listen to your interpretation.
Kinda like a person letting the outliers on a bell curve give the idea that they are representative of the ones in and around the curve.

[Outpost75]

That could be like my uncle used to say "measuring someone else's corn in your half bushel".

That's a good one. My Mum referred to it as picking the fly excrement out of tea leaves.

[Thumbcocker]

I had to look it up. I thought I was pretty good on southern idioms but I was put in the shade.


https://hinative.com/questions/544570

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk