PDA

View Full Version : How accurate is accurate enough?



Joe Mamma
09-26-2011, 08:08 PM
Let's say you are teaching a new shooter how to shoot. Maybe they have shot a few times before, but had no formal instruction until you. They are good with basic gun handling and gun safety.

Now, they are shooting fairly well at 25 feet (2 handed slow fire). They are reasonably comfortable and consistent.

What are your opinions on how accurate they should be until they are "good enough" to move on to learning some other shooting skill? How many shots in what size group? I know we all want them in a single hole. But when is it accurate enough to let them practice on their own in the future, and move on to something different now? Also, what skill do you suggest teaching next, after they have basic accuracy down?

Thanks.

Joe Mamma

ToddG
09-26-2011, 08:24 PM
My threshold is the ability to put five shots onto a 3x5 card at 7yd.

Fly320s
09-26-2011, 08:32 PM
I'd say that it depends on what kind of shooting you are teaching, and what the student wants to learn. Learning skills to improve in IDPA? The A zone should be the goal. Learning skills for personal protection? Maybe a 6 inch circle will suffice.

The real problem lies in determining how fast to shoot; you have to balance accuracy with speed.

joshs
09-26-2011, 08:46 PM
I really like Todd's standard of hitting a 3x5 on demand at 7 yd. If this minimum level of accuracy cannot be achieved, then going faster will only serve to ingrain bad habits. As someone who started out shooting handguns in gun games, I really wish I would have had a better accuracy foundation, it makes everything else easier.

Joe Mamma
09-26-2011, 09:50 PM
Thanks for the opinions guys. I also always remember what Larry Vickers says about the groups starting at double the size you are used to when you are under stress/pressure. That's something to help keep things in perspective.

Fly320s, this is for a "basic" course where the skills could be used for defense, competition, recreation or whatever the shooter wants to do in the future.

I'm curious, what skill do you guys think is best to teach next? They've probably already got basic reloading down. Maybe the combination of shoot, reload, shoot? Maybe different types of reloads?

Joe Mamma

Kevin B.
09-27-2011, 06:23 AM
I consider 3 inches at 7 yards to be the minimum accuracy standard necessary to move on to other aspects of shooting.

In my opinion, advancing the gun from the ready position to the target and delivering a single shot comes next.

Failure2Stop
09-27-2011, 09:03 AM
My threshold is the ability to put five shots onto a 3x5 card at 7yd.

Without holding 9" high and right.

41magfan
09-27-2011, 09:17 AM
As it relates directly to your question in training a new shooter, there's no short cut to establishing the fundamentals with simple exercises. Basic things first - harder things as the student is able to perform them. The student's enthusiasm and progress determine the level of challenge presented to them.

In a general sense, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the goal of all shooting is hitting the intended mark. Anything less should be considered a failure. But, we routinely accept failure - by that definition - for a number of reasons.

Most shooting disciplines (games, drills or exercises) have a predetermined expectation or standard of “success” so determining what's good enough is pretty cut and dried. But here again, less than perfect performance is not only tolerated, but embraced with some measure of enthusiasm. Have you ever seen anyone refuse to be acknowledged for their second or third place performance? Of course not - achievement at various levels needs to be acknowledged as a motivation for future success.

In the abstract, success can be clearly and easily defined. But in a practical, real-world context (the defensive use of firearms, for example), success becomes relatively subjective and that subjectivity is the fuel for the endless (and often mindless) debates as to what level of skill is “good enough”.

My contention has always been that the answer must be determined in light of context and relevance. But unfortunately, that is exactly what is missing in most of the discussions.

ToddG
09-27-2011, 10:27 AM
First, teach safety.

Then, teach fundamental gun handling. I'd rather teach someone the proper way to reload at the beginning rather than watch him reload improperly for hours, days, months while he builds his marksmanship. He doesn't need to be fast, he just needs to know the right way to draw (if applicable), reload, and clear stoppages. I would discourage putting a lot of practice time into it, but no reason to build bad habits.

Next comes marksmanship. While it's good to build toward a standard, I think it's also important to communicate the need to make marksmanship a lifelong pursuit. No one is as accurate as he could be. No one is too accurate. At the end of the day, if you cannot put the bullet where you want it, you're not a shooter.

Finally, I'd work on speed. But it shouldn't just be speed for speed's sake. Too many people are more concerned with what they hear than what they see when shooting. Even at speed, if you cannot put the bullets where you want them, you're not accomplishing anything. I'd much rather have consistent 0.20 splits to a 3x5 at 7yd than 0.15 splits to an 8" circle at the same distance.

And before anyone blows a gasket, no I didn't mention awareness and avoidance and tactics and ninja kicks and keeping your lawyer's phone number tattooed to the bottom of your tongue or anything else. The above list was purely regarding handgun skills.

Ga Shooter
09-27-2011, 11:25 AM
Without holding 9" high and right.

This puts it into perspective. I almost hate to admit this but I think it is an important learning tool, but at one point I decided it was a good idea to misalign my sights so I could have good "hits". This should be the definition of "doing it wrong". But that did make the pistol custom made just for me!:p

David Armstrong
10-05-2011, 12:00 PM
I've advocated "minute of paper plate" as an adequate accuracy standard. One should certainly strive for the index card or postage stamp group, but IMO that is a later-on-in-the-program skill. Keeping the rounds on a paper plate at whatever distance is sufficient for most DGU incidents, and if one does that at X distance and Y speed then one can begin to extend the distance or reduce the speed.

JV_
10-05-2011, 12:02 PM
I've advocated "minute of paper plate" as an adequate accuracy standard. One should certainly strive for the index card or postage stamp group, but IMO that is a later-on-in-the-program skill. Keeping the rounds on a paper plate at whatever distance is sufficient for most DGU incidents,I'm no expert, but I suspect that during an incident those groups are going to open - significantly, so being able to do it, without stress, on smaller targets is a much better idea.

LittleLebowski
10-05-2011, 12:05 PM
I'm no expert, but I suspect that during an incident those groups are going to open - significantly, so being able to do it, without stress, on smaller targets is a much better idea.

Vickers says that in combat, groups double in size.

TCinVA
10-05-2011, 12:45 PM
Vickers says that in combat, groups double in size.

...for the best trained people out there. I have always taken from his statements that those who aren't prepared like SOF supermen can probably expect to do even worse.

LittleLebowski
10-05-2011, 12:57 PM
...for the best trained people out there. I have always taken from his statements that those who aren't prepared like SOF supermen can probably expect to do even worse.

Agreed. Their mindset is a bit better than the average CCW holder :D

David Armstrong
10-07-2011, 12:01 PM
I'm no expert, but I suspect that during an incident those groups are going to open - significantly, so being able to do it, without stress, on smaller targets is a much better idea.
Agreed, it is a better idea. But as I understood the OP, the question was "the minimum accuracy standard necessary to move on to other aspects of shooting." Certainly smaller groups is better than larger groups, but at what point does one say "OK, you've got a basic minimal accuracy level, now let's start training on other things"? For me, once they are controlling their shots enough to keep them in a group like that then we can start working on the little details to tighten up the group, maintain the grouping under various conditions, etc. When the groups get larger unders stress then the shooter knows that they are starting to outshoot their abilities, and should focus a bit more.


Vickers says that in combat, groups double in size.
I've heard that from a variety of sources, but I've never found anything close to valid research showing that. Anybody got anything other than "So and so said" as a source? I don't claim to know everything, but in my experience that claim is certainly violated regularly. I'm not even real sure how one could even begin to go about collecting data on that sort of thing. How does one calculate the size of a group in a combat situation?

TCinVA
10-07-2011, 02:01 PM
I've heard that from a variety of sources, but I've never found anything close to valid research showing that. Anybody got anything other than "So and so said" as a source? I don't claim to know everything, but in my experience that claim is certainly violated regularly. I'm not even real sure how one could even begin to go about collecting data on that sort of thing. How does one calculate the size of a group in a combat situation?

It's a statement that reflects the reality of a gunfight. Trying to hit someone who is using cover, moving, and shooting back at you tends to complicate the fundamentals of shooting. Opportunities to end a threat are fleeting...because bad guys just don't stand there and let you fling lead in their direction at your leisure. You're forced to take the shot the circumstances dictate and you're doing so when the penalty for not getting it done is having your head cut off and put on a stick. If you're in a unit like Mr. Vickers' former unit you're also likely trying to do all of this after some truly brutal physical exertion...like trying to sneak your way onto an airliner to rescue some hostages or climbing up an oil rig or running around the mountains of Afghanistan freezing half to death and low on oxygen, all of which can have a deleterious effect on how steadily you can hold, aim, and work the trigger.

The idea of groups doubling in size is a means of illustrating a key point that many overlook: When you're trying to use a firearm to solve the problem of someone trying to kill you, the bad guy and the circumstances will not be helping you out with that. They're going to make it as hard as possible...so dudes who can barely manage to hang it on paper when conditions are perfect are in for a rude awakening when they're confronted with the realities of being in a gunfight.

Calculations of group sizes in a combat area aren't the basis of that statement. Being a highly experienced, highly trained, highly educated person in the position to participate in and debrief on a bunch of gunfights offers someone like Mr. Vickers opportunities for insight that most do not have.

Some lessons can be learned through experimentation in controlled circumstances. Some can only be learned in the crucible of combat. I think those who have done the most combat will readily agree with the main principles that Mr. Vickers is putting forward with that statement: Namely that shooting a non-cooperative human being who is trying to kill you is much harder than hitting a static target on a sunny range day, and that success in that environment happens only when you prepare yourself to a high standard beforehand.

TGS
10-07-2011, 02:26 PM
I'd also like to point out that Larry Vickers isn't just "so and so said."

That's like telling Buddha he has no credibility about Buddhism because he isn't using research methods 101 and the chicago manual of style.

41magfan
10-07-2011, 02:35 PM
Agreed, it is a better idea. But as I understood the OP, the question was "the minimum accuracy standard necessary to move on to other aspects of shooting." Certainly smaller groups is better than larger groups, but at what point does one say "OK, you've got a basic minimal accuracy level, now let's start training on other things"? For me, once they are controlling their shots enough to keep them in a group like that then we can start working on the little details to tighten up the group, maintain the grouping under various conditions, etc. When the groups get larger unders stress then the shooter knows that they are starting to outshoot their abilities, and should focus a bit more.


I've heard that from a variety of sources, but I've never found anything close to valid research showing that. Anybody got anything other than "So and so said" as a source? I don't claim to know everything, but in my experience that claim is certainly violated regularly. I'm not even real sure how one could even begin to go about collecting data on that sort of thing. How does one calculate the size of a group in a combat situation?


I think those comments and observations are spot-on. In a very general way - Vicker's comment involving a certain group of people training a certain way - that may be a true statement. But there's far too variables to quantify with any predictability what happens between training/practice and real-life for average soul. I've seen good "shooters" almost P on themselves in tight situations and I've seen guys that couldn't hit a bull in the ass on the range solve gunfights well to survive and kill the badguy at the same time.

It's a little bit like the gross vs fine motor skill dogma on which many base their training protocols. Degredation of ones motor skills is a general manifistation that a significant number of people suffer from in certain high stress situations. But it's far from being an absolute.

TGS
10-07-2011, 02:48 PM
I think those comments and observations are spot-on. In a very general way - Vicker's comment involving a certain group of people training a certain way - that may be a true statement. But there's far too variables to quantify with any predictability what happens between training/practice and real-life for average soul. I've seen good "shooters" almost P on themselves in tight situations and I've seen guys that couldn't hit a bull in the ass on the range solve gunfights well to survive and kill the badguy at the same time.

It's a little bit like the gross vs fine motor skill dogma on which many base their training protocols. Degredation of ones motor skills is a general manifistation that a significant number of people suffer from in certain high stress situations. But it's far from being an absolute.

Urinating and/or defecating on yourself has nothing to do with shooting skills, preparation or how hardcore someone is. It's a natural, and completely normal body function in life threatening instances.

ToddG
10-07-2011, 04:39 PM
Let me preface by stating the obvious: I do not speak for Larry Vickers.

Having been in classes with him, at matches with him, and just generally hanging around talking shooting with him, I do not think LAV is trying to imply that if you shoot a 2.12" group today at the range, you'll shoot exactly a 4.24" group if you have to shoot someone on the way home. Rather, it's a simple rule of thumb that has proven itself true countless times.

Since the forum has been talking about Rogers Shooting School lately, I'll use that as an example. The farthest target at RSS is 20yd or so. It's an 8" plate. I could hit it every single time on demand, 2H or SHO or WHO, if I'm just calmly doing the bullseye thing. But when I'm no longer in control of 100% of the situation, when the target dictates how much time I have, etc., then it's no longer a 100% certainty.

Ditto movement, lighting, injury, etc., etc. If you think you'll shoot with the same level of speed and accuracy in a truly stressful dynamic situation that you do when casually practicing on the range, you're either (a) wrong or (b) unlike any person I've ever shot with to include various Tier 1 .mil guys and many world/national champion competitive shooters. It just doesn't happen. And most people, candidly, have no idea how well they'll shoot under real stress.

rsa-otc
10-07-2011, 07:42 PM
I've heard this in the following classes over the last 30 years;

NRA Instructors School
S&W Acadamy
Ayoob
Farnam
Kapelsohn

So unless they are all just parroting each other there should be some reasoned thought & data behind it. Like Todd said this is not a hard and fast rule. Just an example of what is probably going to happen to our skill set.

Lets face it, with the exception of our soldiers and certain police units who know they are going to go immediately in harms way, the rest of us are going to be somewhat suprised when faced with an armed threat. If we knew it ahead of time we would avoid it at all costs. We will be going from a relaxed state to body alarm reaction in a split second with everything that goes along with it. Who realy thinks that we can deliver the shot with the same accuracy as we do on a quiet range where no one is threating your life? Even if we were not moving, dodging etc.; just standing and delivering we are not going to perform at the same level.

So to answer the question of how accurate is accurate enough with an eye towards self defense, never be satisfied that where you are is good enough, always strive to improve. To paraphrase someone else always strive to reach a level that you can deliver the shot no matter what the circumstances. To say this is good enough, is to quit improving.

Joe Mamma
10-07-2011, 09:57 PM
Thank you everyone for all of the comments. This is a great discussion with lots of good information.

David Armstrong understood my original post. The question was NOT "when are you good enough to stop practicing for accuracy for the rest of your life." The question was if you are teaching someone (relatively new to shooting) the basics/fundamentals of shooting, in a limited class time, when are they good enough with accuracy to move on to practice another skill (like reloading, clearing malfunctions, speed, etc.)?

Obviously, some people will say a shooter can practice shooting accurately (and only shooting accurately) for hundreds of hours, getting 10 out of 10 shots in a 4" group at 50 yards . . . and still not be "accurate enough" to practice anything else. But I want to get feedback from others who have a broader perspective.

Also, to reiterate something I said in an earlier post in this thread, what I heard Larry Vickers say is that under pressure (of a gunfight, etc.), your group size will START at double your practice group size.

I agree with Todd when he says that I am sure Larry doesn't intend for this comment to be taken literally. It also doesn't apply to EVERY high pressure situation, because there are plenty of gunfights/shootings that last only one shot (i.e., there is no "group").

But I like to keep Larry's comment in mind because it is a bit of a reality check, even if not taken literally. On the other end of the spectrum, there are some shooters that will say, "Well I can shoot man sized groups in practice. So that's good enough." There are others who might fire 5 or 10 shots at a paper target. They have one hit showing in the head region of the target. They miss the paper completely with all of the other shots, and say, "I'm pretty good. I can make head shots!"

I don't take everything Larry Vickers (or anyone else) says as gospel. Even people who were in the same military group as Larry don't teach or do exactly the same things. Also, I'm sure Larry doesn't teach exactly the same things as he did 10 years ago. In 10 years, I am sure he will not be teaching exactly the same things he does today.

Joe Mamma

MDS
10-07-2011, 10:51 PM
The question was if you are teaching someone (relatively new to shooting) the basics/fundamentals of shooting, in a limited class time, when are they good enough with accuracy to move on to practice another skill (like reloading, clearing malfunctions, speed, etc.)?

As someone who just started "getting serious" about shooting fairly recently, I struggled with this question quite a bit. I ended up putting together a "couch to 5K" program for shooting, where I'd focus on one aspect of shooting until I reached a certain minimum baseline of competence, and only then start working on other aspects. So, I think you and I are thinking along the same lines in terms to building an overall foundation of accuracy as a new shooter, before spending too much time working on other parts of the shooting puzzle.

I really like the focus on accuracy at the beginning. Not only is accuracy pretty important, but also it's easier to work on in isolation. And once I established a minimum acceptable baseline, I tend to keep to that baseline as I speed things up and add in things like drawstrokes and reloads. Plus, all the time it takes to get better accuracy lets you mature as a shooter a little, getting lots of practice with basic manipulations, and reading and learning so that you're a little more able to make your own judgements about techniques, e.g., for reloading, when you finally start working on them.

Now, how much accuracy before working on other things? I answered that by looking around the forums and talking to some folks, and taking a more-or-less average of what people who shoot well would define as "good." Not IPSC GM good, but just regular guy at the range who isn't bad ass but who isn't making a fool of himself, either. My own conclusion was to guarantee 100% hits on a 3x5 card at 7yd 2-handed, and at 5yd SHO and WHO, and also to guarantee passing The Test in 15 seconds.

FWIW, you can find the whole training plan here (http://www.firearmstrainingandtactics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1127). After about 10 months on the plan, I'm getting close to being half-way done - and that's dry-firing most days and shooting most weeks. I think competing would help a lot, but I just don't have the time. To be fair, I delayed moving on to the draw stroke until I had some holsters that didn't suck. I still think it's a pretty good plan though, and I'd love to hear feedback.

ETA: if it isn't obvious, my plan isn't for a class - it's more of a personal development plan which could take a very long time to "complete."

David Armstrong
10-08-2011, 06:42 PM
It's a statement that reflects the reality of a gunfight.
Again, how do we know that? Not trying to bust anyone's chops on it , but that seems like one of those things that would be easy to say but almost impossible to check and verify with any degree of validity. I'm very familiar with a number of gunfights where bad shooters did very good, and good shooters did very bad.

Trying to hit someone who is using cover, moving, and shooting back at you tends to complicate the fundamentals of shooting. Opportunities to end a threat are fleeting...because bad guys just don't stand there and let you fling lead in their direction at your leisure. You're forced to take the shot the circumstances dictate and you're doing so when the penalty for not getting it done is having your head cut off and put on a stick.
Which is sort of my point. During that sort of stuff you are not even TRYING to shoot tight groups, so it is hard to see how that relates. In fact, there is a fair amount of research in LE circles that indicates little or no relationship between shooting on the range and shooting in a gunfight.

If you're in a unit like Mr. Vickers' former unit you're also likely trying to do all of this after some truly brutal physical exertion...like trying to sneak your way onto an airliner to rescue some hostages or climbing up an oil rig or running around the mountains of Afghanistan freezing half to death and low on oxygen, all of which can have a deleterious effect on how steadily you can hold, aim, and work the trigger.
I'm somewhat familiar with that process myself, but it really doesn't address the question.

The idea of groups doubling in size is a means of illustrating a key point that many overlook: When you're trying to use a firearm to solve the problem of someone trying to kill you, the bad guy and the circumstances will not be helping you out with that. They're going to make it as hard as possible...so dudes who can barely manage to hang it on paper when conditions are perfect are in for a rude awakening when they're confronted with the realities of being in a gunfight.
Again, that is why I question the cliche, as there are studies from LE that show little relationship between good groups on the range and success on the street.

Some lessons can be learned through experimentation in controlled circumstances. Some can only be learned in the crucible of combat. I think those who have done the most combat will readily agree with the main principles that Mr. Vickers is putting forward with that statement: Namely that shooting a non-cooperative human being who is trying to kill you is much harder than hitting a static target on a sunny range day, and that success in that environment happens only when you prepare yourself to a high standard beforehand.
OK, but that is very different than a claim of "in combat, groups double in size." As rsa-otc said:
"I've heard this in the following classes over the last 30 years;

NRA Instructors School
S&W Acadamy
Ayoob
Farnam
Kapelsohn

So unless they are all just parroting each other there should be some reasoned thought & data behind it."

I'm one of those guys that has seen enough stuff that was parrotted by lots of folks turn out to be wrong that when something sounds fishy I tend to question it. Don't think that should bother anyone who is a serious student of this stuff. If there is reasoned thought and data out there somone should be able to direct others to the general area at least. If there is not any, that is a different story.

David Armstrong
10-08-2011, 06:48 PM
I'd also like to point out that Larry Vickers isn't just "so and so said."

That's like telling Buddha he has no credibility about Buddhism because he isn't using research methods 101 and the chicago manual of style.
True, but I'd point out that that the literature in this arena is full of Buddhas making statements that later turn out to be demonstrably false. I've seen that claim specifically to be wrong repeatedly in my experience. Thus the question. One can have plenty of credibility and still make claims that turn out not to be founded in reality. Heck, I remember the pronouncement from Jeff Cooper that .45 ACP hardball reliably would stop an assailant with one round 95% of the time.:eek:

John Hearne
10-15-2011, 12:01 PM
To address the original question, about what group size is a prerequisite for advancement, I like the "hand sized group" standard. The caveat is that the group must be maintained, at least out to 25 yards.

To touch on another point, I really like teaching weapon manipulation and when possible, trigger control, without the gun discharging. Most folks will struggle with the mental anxiety of the small explosion which is about to occur in front of their face. When you combine the explosion with a new skill, you don't get much learning. The last range session I taught, I spent the first two hours completely dry. We worked presentation, reloads, and coin drills while calling the shots. When they moved to the range it was very easy to push them for results as they had the cornerstones well laid.

John Hearne
10-15-2011, 12:12 PM
there are studies from LE that show little relationship between good groups on the range and success on the street.

I am only familiar with two studies that attempted to examine the relationship between performance on qualifications and performance in real fights. One study found no correlation and the other, out of Miami, found a slight positive correlation. The problem is that with rare exceptions, LE qualifications do not test reflexive gunhandling. Unless the agency is requiring that their officers pass the old Air Marshall qualification, they aren't testing skills at a relevant level. I suspect that if a more relevant test was used, you'd see a stronger correlation.

David Armstrong
10-15-2011, 04:21 PM
I am only familiar with two studies that attempted to examine the relationship between performance on qualifications and performance in real fights.
NYPD, LAPD, and Detroit are some others that have looked at the issue without finding much in the way of correlation.

The problem is that with rare exceptions, LE qualifications do not test reflexive gunhandling. Unless the agency is requiring that their officers pass the old Air Marshall qualification, they aren't testing skills at a relevant level. I suspect that if a more relevant test was used, you'd see a stronger correlation.
That certainly is part of the issue: what are we actually testing. But that sort of makes the point...unless the range training/experience is more relevant, trying to compare the two as a before and after or as predictive in nature seems somewhat problematic at best.