Accuracy

[BLR]

JV - for the sake of argument, that rational could be applied to any facet of defensive shooting. Can you do a sub 1.5s draw? Yes? How about under stress. If no, then why bother practicing?

GJM - Back before the Gen 4 debacle, I had the wisdom to procure some of Glocks better wares (IMO, anyway) - several G22s, and a couple G17s and G20s. All are what I would classify as "combat accurate." Meaning inaccurate enough I'm not interested in them. The G22s are at C&S right now, to have the grip fixed, usable sights installed, trigger job, and a BarSto bbl installed. They have instructions not to send the guns back w/o verifying they can do 1.5" at 25yrds with the handload I spec'd or HST. Point being, accuracy isn't the sole realm of the 1911.

But to pick on you and Gary a bit more - how many defensive handgun classes have you guys attended? How many marksmanship classes? I'm not critiquing, but with Gary's last post on accuracy, I'm wondering why so little emphasis is given to accuracy. Is a 4" gun really acceptable? If so, why? What's the rational behind it?

[JV_]

JV - for the sake of argument, that rational could be applied to any facet of defensive shooting. Can you do a sub 1.5s draw? Yes? How about under stress. If no, then why bother practicing?

Until I reach a point where the gap between my stressed and non-stressed performance is much smaller, looking at gear based solutions is not a good use of my time.

FWIW: I can't out-shoot any of my Glocks.

[ToddG]

Is a 4" gun really acceptable? If so, why? What's the rational behind it?

Because when that's typically what can be expected from LE/mil sidearms in common usage, it becomes the standard.

Because when people like Vickers say "your group size will double in combat," most folks think being able to hit an 8" circle at 25yd is good enough.

Because folks realize that pistol shots taken at beyond ~10yd in domestic "combat" are extreme outliers.

Because most people can't shoot their pistols accurately or consistently enough at 25yd to know how accurate they really are to begin with, so they don't even bother trying (which brings you, e.g., the M&P9 accuracy issue: it affects the top 1% but thousands upon thousands of owners will never know the difference).

[BLR]

JV - If you'll re-read what I posted, I am not driving at "gear based solutions." I was explicit in that. I asked why accuracy, which as Todd pointed out is additive of gear and shooter, is marginalized. By just about everyone. Is there even a single marksmanship class review on this site?

Todd - I intentionally wanted to steer clear of the "average" shooter. You're last point illustrates my question quite nicely, though. How many people take "Tactical Pistol Shooting 101 and 102" each year? Now then, how many take an actual marksmanship class? Who even offers a class like that?

[GJM]

JV - for the sake of argument, that rational could be applied to any facet of defensive shooting. Can you do a sub 1.5s draw? Yes? How about under stress. If no, then why bother practicing?

GJM - Back before the Gen 4 debacle, I had the wisdom to procure some of Glocks better wares (IMO, anyway) - several G22s, and a couple G17s and G20s. All are what I would classify as "combat accurate." Meaning inaccurate enough I'm not interested in them. The G22s are at C&S right now, to have the grip fixed, usable sights installed, trigger job, and a BarSto bbl installed. They have instructions not to send the guns back w/o verifying they can do 1.5" at 25yrds with the handload I spec'd or HST. Point being, accuracy isn't the sole realm of the 1911.

But to pick on you and Gary a bit more - how many defensive handgun classes have you guys attended? How many marksmanship classes? I'm not critiquing, but with Gary's last post on accuracy, I'm wondering why so little emphasis is given to accuracy. Is a 4" gun really acceptable? If so, why? What's the rational behind it?

First, to address the accuracy thing. Very few classes I have attended have focused on long range accuracy. One that did, that comes to mind, was a Gunsite 499, that had a fair amount of steel at 50-100 yards, sprinkled on various field courses. Jeff Cooper was a proponent at stretching the semi-auto pistol beyond more common ranges. Heck, I have attended carbine courses on a 50 yard range, so sometimes range limitations drive this, although I think most folks, perhaps correctly, are preoccupied with a balance of speed and accuracy at closer distances. There may also be a practical consideration that there might not be a wait list to attend this 50-100 yard pistol class.

The good news, is we don't need a class to focus on marksmanship, near and far. I have steel at 50, 65 and 100 yards on my home Colorado range, and even steel permanently in place at 200, 300 and 400 yards if I felt so inclined with the pistol. It was on this range, I first stumbled on the M&P accuracy problem, as all of the sudden I couldn't hit my steel anymore.

Second, to address the equipment question. You are younger than me, but for me, my eyes are more limiting on accuracy at longer distances than the typical 3 inch at 25 yards pistol. If I wanted to be able to shoot up to the accuracy of even my 3 inch@25 pistols, I would need an RMR. It used to be I could hit an 8 inch steel with a Glock .357 Sig almost every time at 100 yards using crappy Trijicon legacy sights. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, and I have long ago given up counting the serrations on my front sight. I don't choose an RMR as a primary carry pistol, because I believe the tradeoffs for me, now, favor iron sights. I am not in 1911 mode now, for a number of reasons, but if I wanted custom 1911 level accuracy in a platform I do like, a Sig easily meets that accuracy standard, and with the DA/SA SRT trigger, gives me an interface able to take advantage of that accuracy. The reason I am carrying a G3 Glock 17 now, and not the Sig, is on balance I shoot it better across a range of tests than the Sig. The Glock is also lighter, more impervious to weather, user maintainable even by a mechanical dunce like me, and the same thing my wife shoots. Doesn't mean that is the right choice for someone else.

I really think it gets down to picking the platform with the feature set YOU like, and understand that there are always going to be tradeoffs of accuracy, weight, cost, reliability, capacity, and on and on. It is only human nature to want to emphasize the feature set WE like and based our selection of our pistol on, because after all, we ran the analysis -- but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the right platform for others, or even the best choice for ourselves.

[jetfire]

A note on the classes - when I was teaching, I would teach a class that was essentially basic defensive pistol, but I called it IDPA 101. I also taught a class that focused on precision pistol marksmanship, which had fun things like shooting a 4 inch circle at 25 yards, 1 inch squares at 15, etc. It was built around my experiences shooting NRA Collegiate bullseye and Bianchi Cup, and designed to test a shooter's ability to wring the maximum accuracy out of their gun possible.

It also wasn't nearly as popular as the IDPA 101 course, specifically because it wasn't really practical. I can teach a person to shoot a 3 inch group standing at 25 yards, but the reality of the situation is that skill is a lot less applicable to people who are taking classes.

As far as me taking classes go, I don't take extreme pistol accuracy classes because I spend a huge portion of my year training for Bianchi Cup. That's enough extreme pistol accuracy for me, thanks.

[BLR]

Maybe I should reword my question.

Why, on this forum and others, in classes, and so on, is accuracy marginalized as a skill set by so many cognoscenti.

George - I disagree with you on the not needing instruction/mentoring for accuracy. My biggest gains were at Bullseye matches and small classes where instruction was easily obtained.

[TCinVA]

Maybe I should reword my question.

Why, on this forum and others, in classes, and so on, is accuracy marginalized as a skill set by so many cognoscenti.

George - I disagree with you on the not needing instruction/mentoring for accuracy. My biggest gains were at Bullseye matches and small classes where instruction was easily obtained.

Accuracy isn't marginalized. Hitting matters.

But accuracy isn't the sole consideration. It sits as one component of a complex formula. Accuracy is fine, but it needs to be delivers within a useful time frame to do any good. An accurate pistol is fine, but not very useful if it isn't reliable or effective.

There's such a thing as fast enough and accurate enough for a given task.

[ToddG]

Why, on this forum and others, in classes, and so on, is accuracy marginalized as a skill set by so many cognoscenti.

I cannot think of a single serious class I've attended where accuracy was marginalized.

[DocGKR]

In a previous iteration of my life, I shot pistol bullseye and rifle hi-power matches.

Several "tactical" instructors I have met have highly stressed both basic marksmanship and practical accuracy (accuracy under pressure and at speed) at 25 yds and beyond--folks like Pat McNamara and Kyle Defoor come to mind. Many of the practical competition shooters I've trained with did not demand as much pure accuracy--instead wanting speed with acceptable accuarcy (mainly A-zone hits). I think ToddG does a pretty good job balancing the two in his classes.

When I was on military duty and instructed a wound ballistics block at SOTG Range 130 Camp Pendleton, the MEUSOC .45 Auto 1911 pistols shot around 3-4" or so at 25 yds--this was acceptable for their mission. Back when I could see the iron sights, my .45 Auto 1911 bullseye pistol could place all ten rounds in a 1.5" circle at 25 yds. For most self-defense/LE shooting incidents, a pistol that shoots under a 5" group at 25 yds is sufficient for the job at hand.

What I want is consistency. I would rather carry a pistol that always shoots within a 4" circle, than one that shoots 2" 95% of the time, but randomly throws an occasional shot out to 8". More accuracy is always better, but not at the expense of consistency, reliability, or speed. It is a balance. That is crux of my problem as discussed in the other thread on my pistol selection.