How good is good enough?

[VolGrad]

This post was spawned from my range trip this morning. Specifically, I started thinking about the inherent accuracy of one gun vs another. It was also sort of inspired by the recent discussions of the accuracy issues some have had with recent production M&P9 pistols.

Like most of you I have some guns that I shoot better than others. There are too many variables to discuss what might be the cause of this but we all know what they are so it's probably not worth trying to get into anyway. I have sold/traded off guns I didn't shoot well in favor or focusing on ones I did shoot well. I also have guns I would feel more confident carrying than others based on perceived accuracy potential. Specifically, I'm talking about GLOCKs of the same model .... a G19 that shot well compared to one that was mediocre, etc.

I'll post some "data" to put it in perspective for me. This isn't bragging because frankly it isn't all that great. It will just give you a point of reference as to where I'm coming from.

My most recent IDPA classification was EX in SSP. My total score was 113.71 (22 pts down).
In addition to shooting regular monthly IDPA matches I shoot 4-6 GSSF matches per year with my best scores being in the low-mid 80s.
I have taken numerous defensive pistol classes with both local & big name trainers.
My FAST score of record is 7.37 clean IIRC. I am confident I can do better but don't "practice" this drill frequently.
On the range I can keep nearly every round from a magazine inside a 3" circle from 7yds with the flyers generally being within an inch or so. I can keep most of the rounds from a magazine inside a 6" circle from 15yds with the occasional flyers same as before.
In contrast I can't shoot worth a crap benchrested at 25yds. This seems to be how many measure the accuracy potential of a gun. For me it doesn't do much. I can shoot better free hand at 25yds and still keep most of the rounds inside the 6" circle.

So what brought this thread about is the fact I shot a few different GLOCKs today side-by-side with my new M&P9 and M&P45. I wanted to see if I was having the same issues with the M&P9 as others. Frankly, I can't tell because I can't shoot well from 25yds to really tell. From closer distances I shot the M&Ps about the same (or better) than my GLOCKs.

My question is sort of along the lines of, "Should most of us be all that concerned that recent production M&P9s won't hold consistent 1" groups at 25yds?" Ken Hackathorn presents data stating most all defensive shootings occur well within this distance, half of that distance actually. If we can wear the center out at 15yds and run the gun well should we be concerned with shooting one's eyeball out at 25+ yds?

Like most of you I would rather have a gun that is more capable than I. Especially knowing under stress my skills won't even come close to what I normally exhibit on the range. But having said that, "How good is good enough?"

[TGS]

I don't think anyone is necessitating 1" groups at 25 yards from a service handgun.

But when you have a gun that affects your ability to make accurate hits because it's so inaccurate itself, then that's where you might need to draw the line and get a different gun.

If someone has an M&P that can only print 6" groups while rested at 25 yards, then the group is going to be noticeably worse in human hands, and likely have a hard time hitting COM at 25 yards....which is unacceptable in my views. While less often, fights do happen at that range. Both SOP-9 and Tom Given's students' encounters will reflect about 1/10 gunfights at that range, and roughly 2/10 greater than 7-10 yards. Not being able to hit your target because the gun is so inaccurate is not going to help your situation, and weapons are available which will perform while still being dependable, concealable, affordable, ect, so I don't see any reason to choose a gun that can barely hit COM at 25 yards....

[YVK]

But having said that, "How good is good enough?"

Good enough for what is the question. If you're weighing in your statistical chances of needing to take an important shot beyond 7-10 meters, then chances are such so you shouldn't care what MP prints at 25 yards. After all, high risk occupations and behaviors aside, your chance of needing to take ANY shot is pretty low.
However, if you're concerned with improving your overall skill set, then subpar long range accuracy is not good enough.
I am, just like you, not always confident in my own accuracy with long shots, and I try to work on this quite regularly. Why would I want then shoot a gun that can create an additional error and thus provide with a wrong feedback? Did I throw this shot or did it throw the shot?
You've mentioned taking classes from some named trainers. There is a whole group of them from the same unit who use long distance exercises extensively as a diagnostic and teaching tool, and most classes I took has some drills out to 20-25 yards. Why would I want to spend 1500-2000 bucks, factoring ammo, travel, tuition etc, and then frustrate myself for two-five days?

There are just two examples, but I personally see no good reason to settle for "good enough to 10 yards" pistol these days.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Their is good enough with "This gun's potential accuracy is X at Y distance, and I'm satisfied with that."

However, "My gun may or may not have a mechanical accuracy issue, and while some of them can do X at Y distance, my gun is doing X+x at Y distance, but I shouldn't worry about it because I only shoot at A% of Y distance and my gun is good for that/gunfights don't take place at Y distance, they are much closer affairs...so I'm satisfied with what I have."

First is an acceptance of the limitations of hardware that performs in spec...second is knowing that your hardware isn't in spec, but realizing that it's probably going to be OK for several reasons.

I'm OK with #1, not #2...

[JHC]

Going back a couple/few years on Brian Enos' forum, on the board focused on M&Ps; USPSA shooters commonly made a point pretty much the same as yours. Their 5" M&P didn't want to group better than 5-6 inches at 25 yards and they didn't think it mattered much to their sport. OTOH there were others like me that just still wanted a 2-3" capable gun.

My recollection is that the shooter provides a "cone of wobble" and the gun provides a cone of mechanical accuracy. If my gun will deliver 2" but I wobble 8" then a 3" group is really dumb luck. But if I can hold 4" at 25 yards but my gun is no better than 6" of mechanical accuracy, then my groups will day in day out greatly exceed what I'm capable of shooting.

For most realistic SD scenarios 3-6" inch precision at 15 yards is more than will likely be needed. Yet we understand that when the heavy hitters like the HRT or JSOC units spec out a pistol they have often required much more accuracy. So some of us, myself definitely included, want that sort of potential too. Rightly or wrongly, I for one don't intend to be talked out of it. And if my target only provides part of a shoulder or part of a leg from cover, I may need every bit of it.

That's how OCD and delusional shooters such as I think.

But for closer ranges 15 yards and under, I was never disappointed by my Pro 9 that sucked at 25. And if not for those days I work out on the 25 and 50 yard bullseye range, I would be none the wiser.

[Savage Hands]

Good enough for what is the question. If you're weighing in your statistical chances of needing to take an important shot beyond 7-10 meters, then chances are such so you shouldn't care what MP prints at 25 yards. After all, high risk occupations and behaviors aside, your chance of needing to take ANY shot is pretty low.
However, if you're concerned with improving your overall skill set, then subpar long range accuracy is not good enough.
I am, just like you, not always confident in my own accuracy with long shots, and I try to work on this quite regularly. Why would I want then shoot a gun that can create an additional error and thus provide with a wrong feedback? Did I throw this shot or did it throw the shot?
You've mentioned taking classes from some named trainers. There is a whole group of them from the same unit who use long distance exercises extensively as a diagnostic and teaching tool, and most classes I took has some drills out to 20-25 yards. Why would I want to spend 1500-2000 bucks, factoring ammo, travel, tuition etc, and then frustrate myself for two-five days?

There are just two examples, but I personally see no good reason to settle for "good enough to 10 yards" pistol these days.

This explains it right here IMO... There's no reason to add an additional variable in shooting semi-accurately fast or slow.

[David Armstrong]

How good is good enough? You'll never know until after the fact. Until then it is a matter of confidence in what you are doing. Right now I'm confident that if I get into any reasonably expected DGU any firearm I carry these days will get me through it without any problems. That is good enough for me for now. When I shot competitively I had a different standard of what was good enough for that, and when I carried for my job chasing down bad guys I had another standard of what was good enough.

[BN]

My standard for gun/ammo/sights is that I must be able to put a magazine full on the head of an IDPA/USPSA target at 20 or 25 yards shooting freestyle, both hands, standing. The majority of the group must be centered on the head.

[VolGrad]

But when you have a gun that affects your ability to make accurate hits because it's so inaccurate itself, then that's where you might need to draw the line and get a different gun.

I agree 100%.

I don't see any reason to choose a gun that can barely hit COM at 25 yards....

I agree 100% here too but what I was asking wasn't about a gun that misses COM at 25yds. What I'm asking is for those of us who aren't carrying this a pistol as a duty weapon on a SWAT entry team ... is the difference between a 2" group and a 4-5" group at 25yds enough to write a gun off?

I'm not being argumentative. That's a real question.

[Al T.]

IMHO, no. I'd take an easily achieved 4 inch group at 25y. By that, I mean that if I had to work hard to get the accuracy (think ammo sensitive or heavy trigger), I'd be put off quite a bit.

But a handgun that can consistently do 4 inches, yes. I'd actually be OK with 5.5 come to think of it.